IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.796 of 2007 LUXMAN KUMAR SON OF KAMESHWAR MAHTO @ THAKUR MAHTO, RESIDENT OF BALWA, SAHPUR SAHPUR, POLICE STATION NAGARNAUSA DISTRICT- NALANDA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. AMRENDRA KUMAR SON OF CHANDESHWAR MAHTO, RESIDENT OF BALWA SAHPUR, POLICE STATION NAGARNOUSA, DISTRICT- NALANDA. For the petitioner : Mr.Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate For the O.P. no. 2 : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Raj Ballav Singh, A.P.P. ----------- 4 01.07.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner herein is the informant of the case which gave rise to Sessions Trial No. 7 of 2003 of the Court of 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Hilsa whereby while convicting the other accuseds put on trial, O.P. no. 2 herein was acquitted of the charges. In the morning hours of 4.4.2005, the informant and his father (deceased) had gone to the field for the purpose of ploughing the same. The oxen employed by them strayed into the field of co-accused Chandeshwar Mahto. This enraged him. There was verbal duel between the deceased and Chandeshwar Mahto. Resultantly, sons were called in. Three sons of aforesaid co-accused Chandeshwar Mahto including O.P.. no. 2 arrived at the scene of occurrence. Allegation further is that co-accused Anil and Amrendra Kumar (O.P. no. 2) caught hold of the deceased whereafter co-accused Devendra Prasad pierced pointed rod (screw driver) into the right side of chest of the victim which proved fatal. 2 At the trial, prosecution seems to have examined 11 witnesses. The defence also adduced 10 witnesses in order to prove their innocence. Learned Trial Court on a consideration of the evidence available on record has found and held in paragraph 29 of the judgment that P.W. 10 is the sole eye witness of the occurrence. Evaluating his evidence, it has been concluded that contradictory statements regarding holding of Kameshwar Mahto by Anil Kumar and Amrendra Kumar (O.P. no. 2) were made by this witness if his examination-in-chief is collated with the cross- examination particularly those recorded at paragraph 25. On such evaluation, it has found and held in paragraph 30 that the evidence on the point of holding Kameshwar Mahto by accused Anil Kumar and Amrendra Kumar has not been found proved beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any perversity in the said approach of the learned Trial Court. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )