IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.750 of 2008 1 SHIVJEE MAHTO …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAM AUTAR MAHTO 3. RAM LAL MAHTO 4. RAM PRASAD MAHTO 5. ASHARFI MAHTO 6. RAM CHARITAR MAHTO 7. BAUE LAL MAHTO 8. TILAK MAHTO 9. SIYA RAM MAHTO 10. SHIV LAL MAHTO 11. RAM ASHISH MAHTO 12. GANGA BISHUN MAHTO …OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 03. 15.11.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner, is the informant and is raising a grievance with regard to the judgment and order dated 29th April,2008 passed in S.T.No.601 of 2006 whereby learned trial court on a consideration of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge(s) beyond shadow of reasonable doubt against o.p.nos.12 for causing death of four-year-old daughter of the informant and accordingly he has been held guilty under section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. Other o.p.(o.p.nos.2 to 11) were held guilty only under sections 427 and 447 IPC and thereafter let off under the Probation of Offenders Act. It is submitted that based on evidence, learned trial court has wrongly convicted o.p.no.12 of the charge(s) punishable under section 302 IPC. In sum and substance, it is the 2 contention of the petitioner, that he should have been acquitted of the said charge. Learned counsel submits that such conviction has been recorded on a consideration of deposition of P.W.1 to 6 who were declared hostile. Learned trial court has found in paragraphs 17 and 18 that the evidence of P.W.1 to 6 throw adequate light on the prosecution case. Referring to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Ramesh Pd. Mishra (1996 10 SCC 360), learned trial court has considered the deposition of P.Ws.1 to 6 in order to come to the aforesaid conclusion. Having regard to the entire materials on record, it appears that learned trial Judge has deprecated the manner in which investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer as would appear from paragraphs 27 and 31 of the impugned judgment. Learned counsel has not been able to demonstrate any patent illegality in the order meriting interference. The application is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )