JUDGEMENT Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. 1. The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 7th February 2002 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Patna High Court CR. REV. No.242 of 2002 dt.24-08-2011 2 Judge, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 105 of 1996/ S. T. No. 22 of 1998 arising out of Raj Nagar P. S. Case No. 79 of 1995 by which the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 7 have been acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 447, 323, 324 and 307 I.P.C. by giving them the benefit of doubt. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.8.1995 at about 3 P.M. the informant got information that ridge of his land was being demolished by the accused and they were also amalgamating his land to their own land by demolishing the ridge. The informant went there and saw that all the accused persons have demolished the ridge and amalgamated his land to their own land. The informant protested on which the accused persons ran to assault him. The informant fled away from that place and he was chased and caught. Accused Dilip Yadav assaulted him with lathi and accused Rambriksh Yadav assaulted with Farsa. In the meantime, on halla the father and elder brothers of the informant came there for his rescue but they were also assaulted with intention to kill. On the fard Patna High Court CR. REV. No.242 of 2002 dt.24-08-2011 3 beyan of the informant Raj Nagar P. S. Case No. 79 of 1995 was instituted against the accused. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against them and cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the court of sessions. Charges were framed against the accused and they were acquitted vide the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned trial court has rejected the evidence of the injured on the ground that they are interested witnesses and they have omitted certain facts before the Investigating Officer. The learned trial court has wrongly taken into consideration that the genesis of occurrence has not been proved. Learned trial court has not taken into consideration the medical evidence which is consistent with the oral evidence. Learned trial court has wrongly acquitted the accused. 4. Learned counsel for opposite party nos. The learned trial court has wrongly taken into consideration that the genesis of occurrence has not been proved. Learned trial court has not taken into consideration the medical evidence which is consistent with the oral evidence. Learned trial court has wrongly acquitted the accused. 4. Learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 7 has submitted that the learned trial court has considered the evidence of the witnesses minutely and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution Patna High Court CR. REV. No.242 of 2002 dt.24-08-2011 4 party has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Accused-opposite parties are entitled to get the benefit of doubt. He has further submitted that the scope of revision is limited and it cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. In support of his contention he has relied upon a decision of Supreme Court in the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, reported in AIR 1962 S.C. 1788 . 5. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of materials on record, it appears that learned trial court has considered the evidence of prosecution which has examined as much as 12 witnesses, out of them P.W. 11 and 12 are the formal witnesses. Learned trial court has minutely discussed the evidence of prosecution witnesses and has found that the prosecution witnesses have developed the case during their deposition. Learned trial court has not found the evidence of prosecution witnesses trustworthy. He has found that occurrence has taken place but the prosecution has not been able to substantiate his case against accused Patna High Court CR. REV. No.242 of 2002 dt.24-08-2011 5 to have committed the offence beyond all reasonable doubts. There is no glaring defect in the procedure or there is manifest error on the point of law. It has been mentioned in Section 401(3) Cr.P.C. that nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find that there is glaring defect in procedure or there is manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. I do not find any illegality or impropriety of the order. 7. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find that there is glaring defect in procedure or there is manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. I do not find any illegality or impropriety of the order. 7. In the result, this revision application is dismissed.