IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.371 of 2009 SURESH SAO S/O LATE RAMESHWAR SAO --- PETITIONER Versus 1. GANAURI SAO SON OF LATE MANIK CHAND SAH 2. ASHOK SAO SON OF GANAURI SAO 3. UPENDRA SAO 4. SANTOSH SAO 5. UMA SAO ( ALL SON OF GANAURI SAO) 6. VIJAY SAO SON OF LATE DOMAN SAO -- OPP. PARTIES IST SET 7. THE STATE OF BIHAR --- OPP. PARTY 2ND SET. ----------- 02 11.10.2010 Informant (PW6) is the petitioner. He is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 3rd December, 2008 passed in Trial no. 698 of 2008, whereby on a consideration of the materials on record the accuseds (opposite party nos. 1 to 6) have been acquitted of the charge(s) punishable under Sections 341/34, 323/34 and 324/34 of the Penal Code. It seems that PWs 6 and 7 only supported the prosecution case. Learned trial Court considered the materials on record and found that these two PWs have not been corroborated by any other evidence. The doctor who allegedly examined the informant and his injured wife was also not examined although cited in the charge sheet as a witness. The attention of PWs 6 and 7 was/were also drawn to their respective statements made before the police. It appears the Investigating Officer was also not examined. In the back drop of these facts/conclusions emanating from the record, the order of acquittal has been recorded. In my view, the consideration of the matter by learned trial Court, cannot be said to be patently illegal or perverse. Application lacks merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)