IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1183 of 2008 AJAY SAH, S/o Prabhu Sah, Resident of Village- Jhakhra, P.S.-Gopalpur, District-West Champaran. ……………….Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Shesnath Mahto, S/o Late Suryabanshi Mahto 3. Chandshi(Chansi) Sharma, S/o Shaktinath Sharma 4. Ramnath Sah, S/o Late Rekha Sah 5. Khajanchi Sharma, S/o Shakktinath Sharma 6. Shaktinath Sharma, S/o Late Ganga Bishun Sharma 7. Achatanand(Astanand) Mahto, S/o Late Basudeo Mahto 8. Samsuddin Mahto, S/o Ramjan Mian 9. Pintu Mahto, S/o Late Suryabanshi Mahto 10. Kamal Sharma, S/o Suchit Sharma All (Nos. 2 to 10) resident of village-Jhakhra, P.S.-Gopalpur, District- West Champaran. ……….. Opposite Parties. For the petitioner - Mr. S.N.P.Sinha, Sr. Advocate. - Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate - Mrs. Mira Kumari, Advocate. For the State - Mr. Nasim Yahya, A.P.P. ----------- 2 23-06-2010 Heard both sides. Informant/Petitioner challenges the legality of the order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court (Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court No. III, West Champaran, Bettiah in Sessions Trial No. 167 of 2002). An F.I.R. appears to have been lodged on 27-10- 2000 by the informant (PW-10) alleging therein that his father Prabhu Sah (PW-9) was allegedly kidnapped at gun point by the accused persons. The victim (PW-9) was allegedly rescued by the police within three hours and returned home. During trial the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses to 2 substantiate the charges/allegations. The defence also examined few witnesses. The learned trial court has come to the conclusion that admittedly both the parties were at loggers head and cases were pending between them. It has further found that there are vital contradictions so far as the demand of ransom is concerned in the statement of the victim (PW-9) and his respective statement made before the court under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Full-brothers of the victim were produced on behalf of the defence, who are said to have stated before the court that the allegation is out and out a false one. Learned trial court meticulously evaluated the evidence available on record and has come to a definite conclusion that the allegation(s) made out against the opposite parties/accused herein was/were not substantiated. This fact shall be evident from perusal of paragraph nos. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40 of the judgment. If two views are reasonably deductible and the court has taken one the same cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. This court finds no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. Sujit (Kishore K Mandal, J.)