IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1397 of 2008 SAKAL DEEP SINGH SANJEEVAN, S/O- LATE ARJUN SINGH (FREEDOM FIGHTER) RESIDENT OF VILL. + P.O.- + P.S.- DHARHARA, DISTT. MUNGER. Versus 1. PAWAN KUMAR SINGH S/O- LATE RAMA NAND SINGH 2. SANJAY KUMAR SINGH 3. SANJEET KUMAR SINGH BOTH SONS OF LALIT SINGH ALL OF VILLAGE. P.O.- + P.S.- DHARHARA, DISTT. MUNGER. 4. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR. For the petitioner : Mr. Ebrahim Kabir, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ansarul Haque. APP. ----------- 2 28.07.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner, who is informant, is igniter of the criminal proceeding giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 187 of 2000 of the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-F.T.C. I Munger, is aggrieved by the judgment and order whereby the O.Ps herein have been tried and acquitted of the charge(s) under diverse sections of Indian Penal Code including Section 307 IPC. The prosecution case, as made out in the F.I.R. lodged by P.W. 3, is that when the informant along with his son Geeta Kumar (P.W. 8) were going to lodge an F.I.R. relating to a previous incident, the accused persons intercepted them and the son was assaulted by means of fists and slaps. The injured (P.W. 8) became unconscious and had to be carried to the hospital. At the trial, 10 witnesses were examined. P.Ws. 1 and 2 have been declared hostile and tendered respectively. P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 have not supported the prosecution. The injury report 2 relating to the injured is not on record properly proved inasmuch as the Doctor and I.O. were not examined. In the backdrop of these facts emanating from records, learned trial court held in paragraph no. 9 as under: “From the perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution it appears that the witnesses have not alleged any specific overtact against any of the accused facing the trial. All the P.Ws are relating like father, sons and grand father and the additional witnesses are not in consisting on any of the point rather their statements are contradictory to each other. The I.O. and doctor have not been examined by the prosecution. P.W. 6 and P.W. 9 are not chargesheeted witness. Altogether seven chargesheet witness have been examined in this case out of them five witnesses have not corroborated the prosecution case nor implication of the accused persons in the alleged occurrence.“ This Court does not find any patent illegality in the order meriting interference. The application has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )