IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.965 of 2009 RAM SHARAN SINGH @ RAM BHAJAN PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE JAGEHWAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MEHDA, SHAHPUR, P.S. CHERIA BARYARPUR, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI. …..PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. KAPILDEO SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM UDIT SINGH. 3. SATYA NARAIN SINGH SON OF LATE RAM UDIT SINGH. 4. KAPIL DEO SINGH SON OF LATE SHIV NARAIN SINGH. 5. NAND KISHORE SINGH SON OF LATE SITA RAM SINGH. 6. CHUNCHUN SINGH SON OF CHANDRADEO SINGH. 7. BIPIN SINGH SON OF NAND KISHORE SINGH. 8. BIJAY SINGH SON OF RAM UDIT SINGH, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MEHDA SHAHPUR, P.S. CHERIA- BARIHARPUR, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. …….OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- 02. 30.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is the informant of Cheriya-Bariarpur P.S Case No. 132 of 1991 and thus igniter of the criminal proceeding leading to S.Tr. No. 351 of 1992. He is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge,1, Begusarai. Learned counsel while assailing the judgment and order of acquittal submitted that the learned court below has taken a parochial view of the matter in acquitting the accuseds (o.ps. herein). He drew attention of the court to various findings recorded in the impugned order. On a perusal of the judgment, it appears that learned trial court considered the totality of the circumstances. It is admitted position that several litigations are going on between the parties. In the backdrop of these facts the evidence on record 2 was evaluated and it was found/held that prosecution failed to prove the charge(s) beyond shadow of reasonable doubt(s). In my view, the consideration of the matter by the learned trial court cannot be said to be either patently illegal and/or perverse. The application is dismissed. Devendra/ ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)