IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.436 of 2009 AZIMUDDIN S/O LATE ABDUL GAFOOR. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. MD. MOHSIN SON OF LATE ABDUL GAFOOR 3. MD. MAHFOOZ ALAM SON OF LATE MD. MOJIB 4. MD. ATAUR RAHMAN SON OF LATE MD. MOJIB 5. MD. MOTIUR RAHMAN SON OF LATE MD. MOJIB. --- OPP. PARTIES. For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Irshad, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh APP ----------- 02 02.11.2010 Petitioner is the igniter of the case being the informant which gave rise to Sessions Trial no. 418 of 2006 for charges punishable under diverse Sections of the Penal Code including Section 307/34 of the Penal Code with an allegation that one of the accuseds fired from his pistol causing injury to none. At the trial 06 witnesses were examined including the Investigating Officer of the case to prove the charge(s). Learned trial Court appraised their evidence in paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of the impugned order which reads as under:- “9. From the perusal of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution it appears that the I.O. had not made any search or seizure on the P.O. land which shows that the occurrence had taken place as per the averment of the prosecution witness. The witness examined by the prosecution are all interested witnesses and they are the family members of the informant. The prosecution has also failed to examine the named witnesses without assigning any reason/ 10. From the scrutiny of the evidence it also appears that there is previous enmity between the parties and they are in litigating term. There is also a counter case initiated against the informant and others by the accused persons as 2 Muffasil P.S. case no. 275/2003. There is only one allegation against the accused persons that they fired from his pistol which did not hit any body. The occurrence is further falsify from the statement of the I.O. that he has not seized any thing or found any material which could show that the occurrence has taken place as stated by the prosecution.” I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. On going through the order impugned it appears that learned trial Court has taken a view which seems to be a possible view in the circumstances of the case. The order impugned, therefore, cannot be said to be perverse meriting interference. Application lacks merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)