IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.761 of 2009 GULAB CHAND PRASAD ----- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MADAN KUMAR RAHI 3. BHOLA LAL GUPTA ALIAS BHOLAJEE 4. KRISHNA KUMAR ALIAS KRISHNAJEE 5. VIKASH KUMAR ALIAS VICKY 6. GAUTAM KUMAR ALIAS RAJU 7. AMAR KUAMR ALIAS MUNNA 8. VIJAY KUMAR SON OF MANNU LAL ----OPP. PARTIES. For the petitioner : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Rai, Advocate For the State : Dr. Indiwar Kumari APP ----------- 03 25.02.2011 Informant, who is igniter of the prosecution proceeding giving rise to Sessions trial no. 210 of 2004 is aggrieved by that part of judgment and order of conviction dated 22nd November 2008 recorded in Sessions Trial no. 210 of 2004 whereby opposite party nos. 2 to 8 have been acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 302/34 of the Penal Code. It appears that learned trial Court appraised the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly that of PW5 Smt. Reeta Devi, PW 3 Jai Prakash Gupta, and PW 8 Kameshwar Prasad (Investigating Officer), and came to the conclusion that the materials available on record were deficient to prove the charge against them. Relevant consideration in this regard has been made by learned trial Court in paragraph nos. 12 and 13 of the judgment. In my view, learned trial Court has taken a view which may be a possible view based on materials on record. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the judgment and 2 order impugned suffers from perversity and/or patent illegality. There is no merit in this application, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym/ ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)