IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1173 of 2008 PANKAJ KUMAR, S/o Late Suresh Singh, Resident of Village Hathiawa, P.S. and District- Sheikhpura ……….Petitioner Versus 1. State of Bihar ……..Opposite Party 1st set. 2. Sajjan Singh, S/o Late Ram lakhan Singh 3. Bhushan Singh S/o Late Ram Lakhan Singh 4. Suddu Singh, S/o Sajjan Singh 5. Arvind Kumar, S/o Sakaldeo Singh All resident of village Hathiawan, P.S. and District- Sheikhpura 6. Bipin Singh, S/o Sukhdeo Singh 7. Anil Singh, S/o Sukhdeo Singh 8. Surendra Singh, S/o Sukhdeo Singh All resident of village Sagma, P.S.-Kashichak, District- Nawada. ……….Opposite Party 2nd set. For the Petitioner : Dr. Anjani Prasad Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, A.P.P. ----------- 2 24-06-2010 This application in revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 19th August, 2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court No. Vth, Sheikhpura in Sessions Case No. 536 of 2002/Trial No. 39 of 2008 by which the learned trial court acquitted the opposite parties herein of the charge(s) levelled against them under sections 302/149, 147 & 148 of the Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. It appears from the judgment that out of 10 prosecution witnesses examined in support of the charge(s), PWs. 1 to 4 have not supported the prosecution case. Besides the present opposite parties herein, one co-accused namely Ranjeet Kumar @ Guddu Singh also stood trial. Learned trial court on perusal of the evidence on record, 2 found and held that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge(s) only against co-accused Ranjeet Kumar @ Guddu Singh and he has been accordingly sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. On perusal of the judgment under revision, this court is of the view that the learned trial court has rightly tried to sift the grain from the Chaff after carefully evaluating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses particularly those of PW-5(cousin brother of the informant), PW-6 (informant) and PW-9 (full-brother of the informant). The petitioner has not been able to show any perversity and or patent illegality. In such a situation and on perusal of the judgment of the learned court below, I find that the consideration of the matter by the learned trial court cannot be said to be perfunctory and/or wholly unjust and illegal. Application is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed. Sujit (Kishore K.Mandal, J. )