IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.772 of 2008 CHAMELI DEVI …PETITONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. MODIYA BISHWAS 3. JAGESHWAR BISHWAS …OPPOSITE PARTIES For the Petitioner: Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Singh For O.P.Nos.2 and 3:Mr.Jitendra Kumar Pandey For the State : Mr. N.N.Tiwary,APP ----------- 03. 15.09.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner is the igniter of the prosecution giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 88/2000. The two accuseds (opposite parties herein) were charged and tried for an offence punishable under section 376 IPC. As per the allegation in the first information report, on the date of occurrence at about 10.00 P.M in the night, the two accuseds tiptoed into the room of the informant armed with country-made pistol(s) and committed rape on her under threat. It is the prosecution case that the son of the informant who was sleeping in the same room was also captured. The informant claimed identification in the light of burning lamp (Dibiya). At the trial six witnesses were examined. The doctor who is said to have treated the informant as well as the Investigating Officer of the case was not examined. P.W.1 in her deposition made contradictory statements so far as the weapon with which the accuseds were found armed at the time of occurrence. P.W.2 is the son of the informant. He is categorical in his statement that there was no Dibiya or lantern in the room. 2 P.W.3 is the husband who has supported the prosecution case as a hearsay witness. He has, however, admitted in his deposition that several litigations were pending from before between the parties. In the background of these facts emanating from records, learned trial court has come to the conclusion that prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond shadow of reasonable doubts. This Court does not find any patent illegality and/or impropriety in such consideration of the matter by learned trial court meriting interference. The application is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )