IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.980 of 2007 SITA DEVI, wife of Shatrughan Sah, resident of village Chandipur, P.S. Kishanpur, District Supaul. ….Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Bechan Mandal 3. Shatrughan Mandal 4. Shiv Ram Mandal, all sons of Bunny Lal Mandal, resident of village chandipur, p.s. Kishanpur, District Supaul. …opposite parties. For the Petitioner:Mr. Pramod Mishra & :Mr. Vijay Kumar Mukul For the O.P.Nos. 2 to 4 :Mr. Shiva Shanka Sharma. ----------- 04. 05.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the opposite parties. The petitioner who is the informant of Kishanpur police station case no.58/98 calls in question the legality and propriety of the judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.04.2007, recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C.IV, Saharsa. P.W.3, namely, Sita Devi lodged a written report on 29.05.1998 alleging therein that on 27.05.1998 while she was coming back from her field, the oppoisite parities herein (full brothers) assaulted her by fists and slaps. An attempt was made to outrage her modesty by making attempt to remove her Sari. The opposite parties herein were thus charged under diverse sections of the Penal Code including section 354,316 and 379 IPC. At the trial, five witnesses were examined. P.W.1 admittedly has not supported the prosecution case. P.W.3 is the - 2 - informant of the case, whereas P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer. Learned trial court on evaluation of the evidence of P.W.2 and 3 has come to a conclusion that the informant (P.W.3) in course of her deposition, has not whispered anything about removal of Sari at the hands of the accused persons. In that view of the matter, the charge under section 354 was not found proved. So far as the charge punishable under section 316 is concerned, it has been found and recorded with reference to the deposition of the I.O. (P.W.5) that such allegation was being levelled at a very belated stage after obtaining a certificate relating to termination of her pregnancy. Having noticed that this allegation was not levelled in the FIR and that at the initial state of the investigation no such allegation was ever made by the informant and P.W. 2. Learned trial court has not found it fit to rely on their statements made in the court at the trial. In view of what I have observed above, the consideration of the evidence by the learned trial court cannot be said to be perverse and/or patently illegal justifying any interference. There is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )