IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1195 of 2008 ISHWAR YADAV SON OF LATE DUKHAN YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MAKHANPUR, P.S.- BARAHAT, DISTRICT- BANKA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRAKASH YADAV 3. MAHESHWARI YADAV, BOTH SONS OF AYODHYA YADAV 4. DINESH YADAV @ DEENA YADAV, SON OF AYODHYA YADAV. 5. ADHIKLAL YADAV SON OF LATE SITABI YADAV. 6. CHAKRADHAR YADAV SON OF ADHIKLAL YADAV, ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MAKHANPUR, P.S.- BARAHAT, DISTRICT- BANKA. For the petitioner : Mr. Brij Nandan Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.P.P. ----------- 2 23.06.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner is the informant of Banka (Barahat) P.S. case no. 239 of 1989 which gave rise to Sessions Trial No. 704 of 1990. He is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10th September 2008 passed in the aforesaid Sessions Trial whereby opposite party nos. 2 to 6 herein were tried and acquitted of the charges. It appears that as many as 11 accused persons were made accuseds in the F.I.R. and accordingly, were put on trial. Learned Trial Court, on appraisal of the evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that only P.W. 3 (Rajendra Yadav) was an eye witness to the occurrence. Having appreciated the evidence available on record including that of the Investigating Officer, it has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove part of the place of occurrence. It has also found that the motive assigned for occurrence in the F.I.R has not been substantiated at the trial. In 2 the background of these findings, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the allegation/charges beyond reasonable doubt against the opposite parties herein. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any patent illegality and/or infirmity in the said finding recorded by the Trial Court. This Court finds no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )