IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.13 of 2009 MAHADEO SAH S/O RAM DYAL SAH, R/O VILLAGE- GOVIND FUNDAH, P.S. SITAMARHI, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. …………Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. RAM JIVAN THAKUR S/O BRIJNANDAN THAKUR. 3. SHIV JI THAKUR S/O SITA RAM THAKUR. 4. BINOD THAKUR S/O SHARWAN THAKUR. All Residents of Village-Govind Fundah, P.S. Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi. …………Opposite Parties with CR. REV. No.379 of 2009 RAM JIWAN THAKUR S/O BRIJ NANDAN THAKUR, R/O VILLAGE-GOVIND FONDAH, P.S. & DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. ……………..Informant/Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. MAHADEO SHAH S/O RAMDEYAL SHAH. 3. CHANDESHWAR SHAH S/O GAGENDEO SHAH. 4. AJAY KUMAR THAKUR S/O TLUWAR THAKUR. All Residents of Village-Govind Fundah, P.S. Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi. …………Accuseds/Opposite Parties ----------- 05 22.04.2011 Both matters have been heard together with the consent of the parties. Criminal Revision No. 379 of 2009 is directed against judgment and order of acquittal dated 05.09.2008, whereby the accuseds/opposite parties have been acquitted of the charge punishable under Sections 366A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2009 is directed against the judgment and order dated 5th September, 2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. VIIth, Sitamarhi in Sessions 2 Trial No. 588 of 2005. Both the sessions trial were conducted simultaneously and acquittals therein have been recorded. After hearing the learned counsels appearing in support of these two applications at length, this court is not convinced that a case for interference is made out. There seems to be no patent illegality in the consideration of the matter by the learned court below. A view based on materials on record has been taken which in the facts and circumstances of the case may be a possible view. There is, thus, no perversity in the consideration of the matter by the learned trial court. Both the applications are dismissed. Safik (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)