JUDGMENT Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 18th April, 2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IIIrd, Ramgarh in Sessions Trial No. 464/2014, corresponding to G.R. no. 3786/2014 arising out of Gola P.S. Case No. 154/2014. The sole accused/opposite party no. 2 had been acquitted by learned court below of the charges levelled under Sections 323/307/498A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. As per the informant''s case, her marriage with the accused was solemnized 28 years back from the date of alleged occurrence. She was residing at her paternal house due to harassment and cruelty. It was further alleged that after mother-in-law of the informant died on 26th April, 2013, the accused came to her matrimonial house and started living with her, however, he subjected her to cruelty. On 15th September, 2014 at about 10.00 p.m., he assaulted the informant and threw her into a well and on Hulla, her nephew came and saved her and took her out from the well. 4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 29th September, 2014 under the aforesaid offences and cognizance was taken thereafter by the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag on 31st October, 2014 and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The accused pleaded not guilty of the charges, which were read and explained to him and thereafter trial commenced. 5. Six witnesses were examined, namely, P.W. 1 Sidheswar Mahto, P.W.2 Ghan Nath Choudhary, P.W.3 Ajay Kumar Mandal, P.W.4 Vinod Mahto, P.W.5 Pusiya Devi (informant) & P.W. 6 Dr. Praful Kumar Mahto. One Injury report is Ext.1. 6. Out of six witnesses, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were declared hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W. 5 is the informant and Dr. Praful Kumar Mahto as P.W. 6. The informant, in her deposition, stated that she sustained injury on her jaw, cheek and waist, but no such injury was found by the doctor, who clearly stated in his examination-in-chief that there was no external injury on the person. No witness from the paternal side of the informant has come forward to depose anything against the accused. The informant, in her deposition, stated that she sustained injury on her jaw, cheek and waist, but no such injury was found by the doctor, who clearly stated in his examination-in-chief that there was no external injury on the person. No witness from the paternal side of the informant has come forward to depose anything against the accused. In such circumstances, learned trial court came to the following findings and acquitted the accused: "After hearing the argument of both the sides perused the case record and material available on the record. I find that altogether six witnesses have been examined in this case on behalf of the prosecution but among them P.W. 1 Sidheswar Mahto, P.W.2 Ghan Nath Choudhary, P.W.3 Ajay Kumar Mandal and P.W.4 Vinod Mahto have been declared hostile as they have not supported the prosecution case. I further find that these witnesses have not even named the accused committing any crime as alleged by the informant. I find that informant (P.W.5) has stated in her written report as well as has stated in para 9 in the Court while giving her evidence that Sidheswar, Vinod, Ghan Nath and Ajay came there and saved her. In this case Sidheswar has been examined as P.W.1, Ghan Nath has been examined as P.W.2, Ajay has been examined as P.W.3 and Vinod has been examined as P.W.4, but all these witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. I further find that only informant (P.W.5) has supported the prosecution case but she is not consistent and her evidence has not been supported and corroborated by the evidence of any witness. She has stated in her examination-in-chief that she sustained injury on her jaw, cheek and waist, but none of the witnesses has stated like this. Even Doctor (P.W.6) has not supported this version of the informant and has deposed that he did not find any external injury on her person. I also find that the injury report Ext.1 reflects that there is no internal or external injury on the person of informant and as such, nature of injury was simple. I also find that I.O. has not been examined in this case. I also find that the injury report Ext.1 reflects that there is no internal or external injury on the person of informant and as such, nature of injury was simple. I also find that I.O. has not been examined in this case. I also find that there is no evidence brought on the record with regard to attempt to murder, subjected to cruelty by the accused with informant and any assault caused by the accused to the informant. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that this is a case of full of doubt and prosecution could not be able to prove the charges levelled against the accused beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt." 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made efforts to dislodge the findings of learned trial court on these counts. However, as it appears that out of six witnesses, four being declared hostile even the injury report as Ext.1 prepared by P.W.6 Dr. Praful Kumar Mahto does not show any internal or external injury on the person of the informant and as such, nature of injury was simple. No Investigating Officer was examined in the case. There was no other evidence on record to substantiate the allegation of attempt to murder or subjection to cruelty by the accused or that any assault had been caused by the accused upon the informant. The whole prosecution therefore suffered from serious doubt as to the credibility of the informant''s statement and absence of corroboration of allegation by any other witnesses. In such circumstances, learned trial court acquitted the accused. 8. Upon consideration of submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the relevant record including the impugned judgment, we do not find any error of law or perversity in the appreciation of evidence on record by the Trial Court to exercise our revisional jurisdiction in the matter. Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed.