IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.592 of 2008 BINAY KUMAR SINGH S/O GANESH PRASAD SINGH --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DAMDAM YADAV @ DHANANJAY YADAV S/O JAMUNA YADAV --- OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 04 15.09.2010 Heard both sides. Present in an application filed by one of the witnesses (brother of one of the deceaseds) of Sessions trial no. 583 of 2007, whereby learned trial Court, on a consideration of the materials on record, have come to the conclusion that the prosecution case cannot be said to have been proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts on the sole testimony of PW11. In all 17 prosecution witnesses have been examined to prove the allegation. PWs 1, 2, 3, and 5 were tendered. It appears that PWs 4, 6, 9, 12 and 15 were declared hostile and thus not placed reliance on their evidence. The informant of the case (PW8) did not support the prosecution case. PWs 7 and 11 only are said to have supported the prosecution case. Learned trial Court found that PW7 was only a hearsay witness. It has also been found that PW 11 (petitioner) was a highly interested witness and as such his testimony required to be appreciated with great care and caution. In this facts situation learned Court below has found that the prosecution has not been able to substantiate the charge(s) based on the evidence of PW11. This Court does not find any patent illegality and/or impropriety in the consideration of the matter by learned trial Court meriting interference. There is no merit in this application, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)