IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.716 of 2008 MOHAN SAH S/O BALCHAND SAH --- PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAM DAYAL SAH SON OF LATE BUDHU SAH --- OPP. PARTIES. For the Petitioner : Mr. Vivekanand Singh no.1, Advocate. For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Kumar Sunil, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Anuj Kumar Srivastava, APP ----------- 03 08.10.2010 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, opposite party no.2 and the State. Informant (PW10) set the criminal proceeding in motion by lodging an F.I.R. which ultimately gave rise to Sessions Trial no.110 of 2007. Learned trial Court, on a consideration of the materials on record, has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge(s) beyond shadow of reasonable doubts. As many as 14 witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution to bring home the charges levelled against the opposite party no.2 who was an agnate of the informant. PWs 7, 9 and 10 seem to have supported the prosecution case. PW’s 1,3,4,5 and 6 have been either declared hostile or tendered. Learned Court below appraised their evidence and found that the evidence available on record grossly short of proving the case. I have perused the impugned judgment. Considering the findings recorded by learned trial Court in paragraph nos. 18, 20 and 21, this Court is convinced that a possible view has been taken by learned Court below which cannot be said to be either perverse and/or patently illegal. There is no merit in this application, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)