IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.536 of 2006 SANTOSH KUMAR SAH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5 25.8.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. This revision application has been filed against the order of acquittal of opposite parties dated 13.4.2006 passed by 1st Additional District and Sesisons Judge, Buxar in Sessions Trial No.38 of 2003/146 of 2003 thereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the Opposite Party nos.2 to 7 and convicted one accused, Bablu Singh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial court has wrongly acquitted the opposite party nos. 2 to 7 as there are sufficient evidence on record to show that these opposite parties also took part in commission of murder being conspirators. Perused the impugned order. On perusal of the impugned order it appears that the court below has considered the evidence of witnesses as well as first information report as also the evidence of investigating officer in right perspective. Most of the witnesses have supported the complicity of opposite parties before court but had not disclosed their names before the investigating officer in course of investigation. The Investigating Officer has also been examined who has supported the above facts. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the court below has rightly acquitted the Opposite Party nos.2 to 7 as the prosecution has failed to prove the charge leveled against them beyond all reasonable doubt. This revision application is, accordingly, rejected. B.Jha (Ghanshyam Prasad) - 2 -