IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1044 of 2008 USHA DEVI …PETITONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. KANTI DAS 3. PERU TANTI …OPPOSITE PARTIES. For the Petitioner : Mr.Nageshwar Prasad For the State : Mr. M. Dayal,APP ----------- 05. 01.09.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Nobody has appeared on behalf of o.p. nos. 2 and 3. Present is an application calling in question the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by learned trial court(Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC-IV,Banka) in S.T.No.748 of 2005. Learned trial court on a consideration of materials placed on record, came to the finding that the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The informant (wife of the deceased) had made divergent statements. The learned trial court collated the deposition of the informant(P.W.3) made in another cognate Sessions Trial No. 740/04 and found that she had not even named o.p.nos.2 and 3 as suspected accuseds in the occurrence. It has also been found that the motive assigned to o.p.nos.2 and 3 has not been proved at the trial. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. On a consideration of materials placed on record, particularly the observation/findings recorded by learned trial court in paragraphs 10,11 and 13 of the judgment, this Court is 2 satisfied that order impugned cannot be dubbed as perverse and/or perfunctory. This Court finds no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )