The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and trustworthy evidence in criminal cases, and the court's discretion to dismiss a revision petition based on the unreliability of the evidence.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. The judgment and order, dated 21.8.2003, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Barpeta, in Sessions Case No. 138 of 2000, whereby 4 (four) accused persons, namely, Abul Hussain, Jabber Ali, Aynal Haque, Hanif Ali and Surat Jamal have been acquitted of the charges framed against them under Section 148 and Sections 341, 324 and read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, stands challenged in the present revision by the informant of the case, namely, Mazibor Rahman.

2. Prosecution's case, as unfolded by the FIR (Ext-1), lodged at Sarbhog Police Station, may, in brief, be described as follows : On 22.4.1997, at about 9 am, when Hibibor Rahman, younger brother of the informant, Mazibor Rahman, was proceeding towards Kharisala market from his house pulling hand-cart, all the accused persons, in a group, wrongfully restrained him on the way and accused Jabbar assaulted him with a dagger on his right cheek. On being so assaulted, when Habibor Rahman cried out, his father. Rahimuddin, went running to the place of occurrence with a dagger in his hand and stabbed both Moinul and Jahiruddin to death; but when Rahimuddin started returning home, accused Abul Hussain gave a blow with his spear on Rahimuddin's abdomen and accused Surat Jamal and accused Jabbar struck Rahimuddin with daos killing him on the spot. On witnessing the occurrence and assault on her husband, Rahimuddin, when Joygun Nessa came running to the place of occurrence, she too was assaulted by accused Surat Jamal and Aynal. On hearing the cries of his brother, Habibor Rahman, when the informant, Mazibor Rahman, came out of their house, he saw Moinul and Jahiruddin lying dead at the place of occurrence with injuries on their bodies and his father, Rahimuddin, coming towards their house with a dagger and when Rahimuddin was so returning home, he was given a blow with a spear on his abdomen by accused Jabbar killing the former on the spot. Following the incident, the informant lodged the FIR (Ext-1), the police registered a case and, upon completion of investigation, laid chargesheet against the accused aforementioned under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 323, 325 and 302 IPC. The case was, then, committed to the Court of Sessions and Sessions Case No. 138/2000 came to be accordingly registered.

3. A case, on the other hand, had been lodged against the said informant, Mizobor Rahman, the members of his family including Rahimuddin (since deceased) for allegedly causing death of the said Moinul and Jahiruddin and injuries on others. On completion of investigation of this case too, the police submitted a chargesheet against the accused persons (i.e., the informant, Mozibur Rahman, aforementioned and members of his family) under Sections 147/148/149/341/ 342/323/325/302IPC. This case, on being committed to the Court of Sessions, was registered as Sessions Case No. 177/2000.

4. Both the cases aforementioned were tried by the same Court. In the case, which has given rise to the present revision, charges under Section 148 and Sections 341, 324 and 302 read with Section149 IPC were framed. To the charges so framed, the accused persons pleaded not guilty.

5. In support of their case, namely, Sessions Case No. 138/2000 aforementioned, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. The accused were, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.PC and in their examination aforementioned, the accused denied that they had committed the offences alleged to have been committed by them, the case of the defence being that of denial. The defence also adduced evidence by examining as many as seven witnesses. These witnesses were, however, examined, basically, to prove the pleas of alibi, which some of the accused persons had taken at the trial. The trial, eventually, ended in the acquittal of the accused persons as indicated hereinabove. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused, opposite party herein, i.e., the informant, Mozibur Rahman aforementioned has imp