JUDGMENT : No one appears for the petitioner or for the respondent nos. 2 to 10. However, Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned A.P.P. is present for the State. 2. As this case is pending since the year 2005, the same is being disposed of based on the materials available on record. 3. This application is directed against the judgment dated 28.04.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Rajmahal in Sessions Case No. 172 of 2002 arising out of Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 73 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. No. 162 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the opposite party nos. 2 to 10 have been acquitted from the charges levelled against them. 4. The prosecution story in brief is that the informant was returning home along with one Salimuddin Sheikh and Kalamuddin Sheikh after holding a panchayat at village Alampur. He saw the accused persons standing on the way. It has been alleged that in the torch light, the informant had identified all the accused persons. Further allegation has been levelled that the accused Bhaddu Sheikh, Aghanu Sheikh, Alfak Sheikh and Chand Sheikh were armed with a Nalkati, whereas accused Humayun Sheikh was armed with a Farsa and others were armed with lathi. Further allegation has been levelled that accused Khokha Sheikh and Gayasuddin Sheikh have ordered the other accused persons to kill the informant and Bhaddu Sheikh fired with the Nalkati on the informant with intention to kill him. It is also alleged that the bullet hit on the left thigh of the informant resulting in bleeding injury. The informant fell down on account of the fire arm injury after which other accused persons assaulted the informant with lathi resulting in pain on his back. On raising alarm, many persons of the village assembled and the accused persons managed to flee away. 5. Based on the aforesaid allegations, G. R. No. 162 of 2000 was instituted. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charges were framed under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307/504 of I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. After holding a full-fledged trial, the trial court vide judgment dated 28.04.2005 has acquitted all the accused persons from the charges levelled against them. 6. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of its case. After holding a full-fledged trial, the trial court vide judgment dated 28.04.2005 has acquitted all the accused persons from the charges levelled against them. 6. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of its case. P.W.1 – Salimuddin Sheikh was accompanying the informant after they were returning back home after holding a panchayat at Alampur. This witness has stated that when they arrived near Koyla Bazar, the accused Gayasuddin Sheikh and Khokha Sheikh ordered to kill the Sarpanch at which Bhaddu Sheikh had fired at Khurshid Alam (informant) which caused a injury on his left thigh. P.W.2 - Mainul Haque has stated that after holding panchayati, the informant was returning to his village when Bhaddu Sheikh firerd at the informant resulting in his suffering injury. He also stated that informant is his father-in-law. P.W.3 – Samsuddin Sheikh had been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 4 – Khurshid Alam is the informant who was also injured on account of the alleged fire arm shot caused by Bhaddu Sheikh. This witness has supported the prosecution case and said that while returning home after holding a panchayat in village Alampur, the accused persons had stopped him and thereafter Bhaddu Sheikh had fired at him which caused bleeding injury on his left thigh. This witness has stated that the accused persons were variously armed and after having fallen down, he was assaulted by the other accused. He further submitted that he identified the accused persons in the moon light. P.W. 5 – Madina Bibi has stated that the informant is her brother-in-law, who had sustained injury on his left thigh. P.W.6 – Akhatari Bibi has been tendered by the prosecution. P.W.7 - Dr. Satish Kumar Sinha had examined Khurshid Alam and had found one incised penetrating wound in the left thigh and tenderness in the back. He has proved the injury report which was marked as Exhibit 1. P.W.8 – Kayamuddin Sheikh had proved his signature on the fard beyan which had been marked as Exhibit 2. P.W.9 - Md. Harun Rasid had formally proved the fard beyan and the endorsement regarding institution of the case which had been marked as Exhibit 3. 7. He has proved the injury report which was marked as Exhibit 1. P.W.8 – Kayamuddin Sheikh had proved his signature on the fard beyan which had been marked as Exhibit 2. P.W.9 - Md. Harun Rasid had formally proved the fard beyan and the endorsement regarding institution of the case which had been marked as Exhibit 3. 7. The prosecution case as would appear from the evidence of the witnesses is that when the informant along with 2 other persons were returning home after holding a panchayat at Alampur village, the accused persons had accosted them and thereafter on instigation, Bhaddu Sheikh had shot fire on the informant which caused a fire arm injury on his left thigh. The story which has been narrated by the informant has also been supported by some of the witnesses, but as would appear, the prosecution case has been demolished in view of the evidence of the doctor and the injury report. The doctor who was examined as P.W. 7 has stated in very categorical terms that the informant had suffered incised penetrating wound and no burn injury has been found on the person of Khurshid Alam. He further opined that the injury cannot be caused by fire arm and has also stated that the injury suffered by the informant may be self inflicted. It has also come in course of trial that a case was earlier instituted against the informant on 29.03.2000 by Khurshid Sheikh, one of the accused persons and it seems that as a retaliation to the case instituted by the Khurshid Alam, the present FIR has been instituted making wild allegations against all the accused persons. It is indeed surprising that as per the FIR, after the informant had fallen down, the other accused persons had assaulted him with lathi, but the injury which was found in the back was of tenderness which runs contrary to what has been stated by the informant. The injury report thus demolishes the prosecution case and considering the said fact apart from the fact that there was prevision enmity between the petitioners as well as the informant, the false implication of the opposite party nos. 2 to 10 on consideration of the totality of the circumstances enumerated above, sufficiently gets proved and the learned trial court had rightly acquitted the opposite party nos. 2 to 10 on consideration of the totality of the circumstances enumerated above, sufficiently gets proved and the learned trial court had rightly acquitted the opposite party nos. 2 to 10 from the charges levelled against them as prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against opposite party nos. 2 to 10. 8. Thus there being no reason to cause interference in the impugned judgment dated 28.04.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Rajmahal in Sessions Case No. 172 of 2002, I am not inclined to entertain this application which is accordingly, dismissed. Application dismissed.