IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.264 of 2008 MD.NAIMUDDIN …. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND 2. MUKESH SINGH …. Opposite Parties. ----------- 2. 28.11.2008. N.H./ This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 13th December,2007 passed by F.T.C. I, Sheohar at Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No.64 of 2004/274 of 2006. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the court below has wrongly acquitted the opposite parties under sections 307 and 380 of the I.P.C. and released them under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act for offence under section 323 I.P.C. Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the judgment in question. On perusal of the judgment, it appears that neither the doctor nor the I.O. has been examined in this case. Examination of those witnesses were vital to substantiate the charge under sections 307 and 380 of the I.P.C. The court below has rightly acquitted the opposite parties under above sections for non-examination of material witnesses. The case is of the year 1993. The opposite parties have already been harassed for more than 15 years. Under the facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, this application is rejected. ( Ghanshyam Prasad )