JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the petitioner in the matter of Cr.Revision No.555 of 2000 submits that parties have compromised the matter, as such, he does not want to press this application. 2. Accordingly, Cr. Revision No. 555 of 2000 is dismissed as not pressed. 3. In so far Govt. Appeal No. 8 of 2000 is concerned, respondent no.5 Jay Narayan Mishra is stated to have died during the pendency of the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is abated against respondent no.5. Heard Mr. Ajay Mishra, A.P.P. for rest of the respondents. 4. Both the cases (Govt. Appeal No. 8 of 2000 and Cr. Revision No. 555 of 2000) are directed against the same impugned judgment dated 27.6.2000 passed in S.T. No. 31/96/64/2000 by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani by which all the accused respondents 1 to 8 (Govt. Appeal No. 8 of 2000) have been acquitted. 5. Prosecution case initiated on fardbeyan of one Chandra Bhushan Mishra is that on 25.1.1995 he was sweeping his Darwaza, his grand father, father and brother were sitting there. In the meantime, all the accused respondents 1 to 8 came there, variously armed with Lathi, Grassa, Farsa and Bhala and started to assault the informant, his brother, cousin, father and grand father. There is further specification that his grand father was brutally assaulted by Nand Kishore Mishra. They have further been alleged that they took away one box, one HMT watch and other articles of the room. Grand father was taken to Sadar Hospital, Madhubani for his treatment. 6. The trial commenced and ended in acquittal of all the respondents by the impugned judgment dated 27.6.2000, validity of which has been questioned through filing this appeal by the State Govt. 7. In all sixteen witnesses are examined on behalf of prosecution. Of them P.Ws 5, 6, 7 and 13 are tendered for cross-examination, have stated nothing on merit of the case. P.Ws 8, 9 and 12 are doctors to state the injuries of victims. P.W.11 is I.O. of the case, mainly he is relevant on the point of place of occurrence. P.W.14 is a formal witness has proved X-Ray plate. P.Ws.15 and 16 are also formal witnesses to prove discharge slip and fardbeyan of the case. P.Ws 1, 2, 3 and 10 (informant) are witnesses to state the prosecution case in corroboration of F.I.R. (fardbeyan). 8. P.W.14 is a formal witness has proved X-Ray plate. P.Ws.15 and 16 are also formal witnesses to prove discharge slip and fardbeyan of the case. P.Ws 1, 2, 3 and 10 (informant) are witnesses to state the prosecution case in corroboration of F.I.R. (fardbeyan). 8. Several points have been taken by the trial court to doubt the prosecution case and they are non-examination of independent witnesses as all the material witnesses come from family of the informant and injured, there is vital contradiction and even developed new story. Further allegation of theft is disbelieved as nothing was found stolen by the I.O. when he inspected the place of occurrence including house of the informant. One handicapped person has been shown assailant of the informant. Exhibit-E is handicapped certificate. Another point is use of Farsa but no Farsa injury is found by the doctor. 9. Learned A.P.P. appearing for appellant-State failed to explain the infirmities discussed above if can be ignored. So I find no mistake committed by the trial court in its impugned judgment dated 27.6.2000. 10. Govt. Appeal no. 8 of 2000 is, accordingly, dismissed. Govt. Appeal dismissed.