IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1364 of 2008 SHAIL KUMARI DEVI WIFE OF RAM DAYAL SINGH, R/O- VILLAGE RANJEETPUR KOARI, P.S.- SITAMARHI, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. LAXMI SINGH, SON OF LATE HULAS SINGH, R/O- VILLAGE RANJEETPUR KOARI, P.S.- SITAMARHI, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. For the petitioner : Mr. Hare Krishna Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 6 28.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. No body has appeared on behalf of O.P. no. 2 despite valid service of notice. Petitioner is the prosecutrix of the case which gave rise to Sessions Trial No. 359 of 2006/ 46 of 2007 of the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court-III, Sitamarhi wherein O.P. no. 2 was tried and acquitted of the charges punishable under Section 376 IPC. Altogether 25 witnesses were examined to bring home the charge. Out of aforesaid 25 witnesses, 14 witnesses have been declared hostile. The husband, devar along with two other witnesses and Ex-Mukhiya seems to have supported the prosecution case. Learned Trial Court considered and evaluated the evidence of the prosecutrix in paragraph 11 of the judgment. Evidence of the I.O. was evaluated/appraised in paragraph 12 of the judgment. Defence of the accused seemed to be false implication owing to land dispute between the parties. This fact 2 shall be evident from paragraph 14 of the judgment. Learned Trial Court on an appraisal of the materials on record have come to an conclusion that the prosecution suffers from several disabilities. It has also been found that a consistent effort was made on behalf of the prosecution to develop the prosecution case. Having appraised the evidence on record, learned Trial Court found that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. The view taken by the Court based on the evidence on record seems to be a possible view. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any patent illegality in the impugned order meriting interference. The application has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )