JUDGMENT : JAYA ROY, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. 2. The Petitioner has filed the instant revision application against the judgment dated 28.01.2010 passed by S.D.J.M. Godda, acquitting the accused-opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 from the charges framed against them. 3. The case in brief is that the informant-Petitioner filed a written complaint before the Mahgama Police Station on 20.01.2007 to the effect that on that very day at about 7.00 A.M. Md. Afjal (the opposite party No. 2) was fixing a poll in his land then he went there and asked him about this then the said accused started abusing him and gave a Lathi blow on the back of the informant. In the mean time, the opposite party No. 3 and 4 namely Sk. Kudrat and Md. Istekamul along with another co-accused Noorul Hussain came there and they also started assaulting the informant with lists and slaps. Nurul Hussain took way Rs.500/- from the pocked of the informant and one wrist watch and threatened him for dire consequences. On the basis of the said written report, the case was registered and after investigation charge sheet was submitted only against aforesaid three accused persons i e. opposite party Nos. 2 to 4. 4. The learned Counsel of the Petitioner has submitted that the trial court without appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, acquitted the accused-opposite parties from the charges trained against them. He has further contended that the prosecution has examined seven witnesses to prove his case. According to him, P. Ws.1, 3, 6 and 5 the informant himself have proved the prosecution case being the eye witnesses of the aforesaid occurrence. 5. From the impugned order, I find that the trial court has very elaborately discussed the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses. It has come in the impugned order that the P.W.1 Md. Amiruddin has said that he arrived at the place of occurrence after half an hour and found there Afjal, Kudrat and Nurul all the accused opposite parties as injured and he has advised them for their treatment. P.W.2 in his cross-examination has stated that he was not willing to sign on the seizure list but he was made to sign thereon. He did not know what was written on that paper. 6. P.W.3 Md. P.W.2 in his cross-examination has stated that he was not willing to sign on the seizure list but he was made to sign thereon. He did not know what was written on that paper. 6. P.W.3 Md. Taiyab Ansari says that the occurrence took place in February, 2007 around 7.00 in the morning, he says that Afjal, Istakamul, and SK Kudrat were fixing stake in the land of Moinul Haque and latter on protest he was abused. He further says that nothing happened beyond this. In the cross-examination, he says that Moinul Haque and Afjal are the "Gotia" and their land is in same Jamabandi. He also says that there is a land dispute between both the parties and a title partition suit is running at Godda. In the cross-examination vide para-7 and 8, he says that he witnessed the occurrence from a distance of 15 to 20 cubits and both parties were abusing each other. 7. P.W.4 Abdul Gani who is witness of Seizure list in his cross-examination, he has stated that when he came back from his field then he came to know about the quarrel. He has further stated that he was told by the villagers that Afjal had quarreled with Mainul. 8. P.W.5 Moinol Haque is informant, he has admitted in his cross-examination that Afjal is his cousin and Nurul is his uncle. He has further admitted he has some land dispute with the accused persons. He admits the total area of land is 71 Bighas which was partitioned 40 to 45 years back among Lallu Madar, Gafoor, Sahabuddin, Nurul Hassan, Ali Mohammad and Atabul and his father Abdul Gafoor got his share of the land around five bighas. He has been suggested that no partition has been taken place. He further says in para-11 that land pertaining to Jamabandi No. 776 is in the possession of Sk. Afjal (the opposite party No. 2) from 30 to 35 years. 9. P.W.6 is Moiuddin. Though he has claimed himself as eye witness of the occurrence and stated that he was also assaulted by Afjal but it has come in the statement of the I.O.(P.W.7)that this witness has not stated before the police about fixing of Stake/Poll by Afjal. 10. Afjal (the opposite party No. 2) from 30 to 35 years. 9. P.W.6 is Moiuddin. Though he has claimed himself as eye witness of the occurrence and stated that he was also assaulted by Afjal but it has come in the statement of the I.O.(P.W.7)that this witness has not stated before the police about fixing of Stake/Poll by Afjal. 10. From the above discussions and also perusing the impugned judgment and considering the submissions of the Petitioner, I find that the informant has failed to establish the actual manner of the occurrence and he has not come with the clean hand. Admittedly, there are lands disputes between the parties regarding the lands in question. Furthermore, the informant was not examined by any Doctor. On the other hand the prosecution witness P.W.1 has advised the accused-opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 to get their treatment as he has found some injuries on their person. All these things clearly shows that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-opposite party's Nos. 2, 3, and 4. 11. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere: with the impugned judgment Accordingly, the revision application is dismissed.