IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.875 of 2007 KAMLESH MAHTO S/O MOHAN MAHTO --- PETITIONER/INFORMANT Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. KANHAIYA RAM SON OF SRI TULSI RAM 3. SITA RAM SON OF LATE PRASAD RAM 4. MEHANDI RAM SON OF LATE PARMESHWAR RAM 5. UPENDRA RAM SON OF LATE PARMESHWAR RAM 6. VIR RAM SON OF VIPAT RAM --- ACCUSED/OPP. PARTIES. For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, Advocate. ----------- 06. 13.09.2010 Petitioner is the informant (PW9) and is aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. V, Bettiah, West Champaran in Sessions trial no. 410 of 1997 ( 160 of 2004) whereby opposite party nos. 2 to 6 herein were acquitted of the charge(s) punishable under Section 302/34 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.. In all 14 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge(s) framed under diverse Sections of the Penal Code including Section 302/34 of the Penal code. PWs 1 to 6, 8 and 11 have not supported the prosecution case. They have thus been declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution. As per F.I.R. informant (PW.9) was accompanied by PW-7 when the occurrence had taken place. PW-7 Santosh Kumar also did not support the case as propounded by the informant (PW9). In these backgrounds learned trial Court has found that the evidence were not adequate/sufficient enough to secure conviction of the accuseds. This Court does not find any patent illegality in such consideration of the matter by the learned trial Court. There is no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)