IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.922 of 2009 Sita Ram Yadav, son of Bhola Yadav, resident of village- Gadhiya, police station-Kumarkhand, Madhepura …Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Kari Sardar son of Late Tetar Sardar 3. Kapli Sardar, son of Late Tetar Sardar 4. Birbal Sardar son of Kari Sardar 5. Kishundeo Sardar son of Kari Sardar 6. Vishundeo Sardar son of Kari Sardar 7. Dilip Sardar son of Kapli Sardar 8. Arun Sardar son of Kapli Sardar 9. Bahadur Sardar son of Late Subhak Sardar 10. Ganga Sardar son of Late Mahgu Sardar 11. Bindeeshwari Mehta son of Kaveshwar Sardar 12. Vinod Mehta son of Bindeshwari Mehta 13. Subhash Yadav, son of Bijendra Yadav For the petitioner :Mr. Uday Chand Prasad For the State :Mr. Aditya Nr. Singh I, APP ----------- 02. 24.06.2011 Petitioner is the informant of the case giving rise to S.T.No. 177 of 2004 instituted under sections 147, 148,149,341,323, 384,379 and 307 IPC including section 27 of the Arms Act. In paragraph 11 of the judgment, learned trial court has recorded the materials divergence in evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It further appears therefrom that presence of P.Ws.2, 7 and 8 at the place of occurrence has been seriously doubted in the light of the evidence of other P.Ws. In my view, the consideration of the matter by the learned trial court cannot be said to be patently illegal and/or perverse. There is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )