IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.83 of 2009 UMESHWAR RAI @ UMESH KUMAR S/O LATE PARMANAND RAI --- PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. MUNNA RAI 3. SANJAY RAI 4. VIJAY RAI 5. AJAY RAI ALL SONS OF KHADERAN RAI 6. DINESH PRASAD SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN 7. RANJIT KUMAR SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN. ---OPP.PARTIES. ----------- 02. 01.09.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner/informant is aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal passed on trial no. 475 of 2008 by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Danapur whereby accuseds (opposite party nos. 2 to 7) have been acquitted of charges framed under Section 341 and 323 of the Penal Code. A bare perusal of paragraph nos. 10 and 11 of the judgment impugned reflect that prosecution suppressed the fact regarding the assault on the accused party. It appears from the judgment that there is counter version in which the present prosecution parties are accuseds which is pending trial before learned Sessions Court. It further appears that learned trial Court, on a consideration of the materials brought on record, came to the conclusion that the present prosecution party were aggressors. In the backdrop of these facts emanating from the record, judgment and order of acquittal has been recorded. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the impugned judgment is palpably perverse. There is no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)