IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1200 of 2008 GAJADHAR YADAV, S/o Kanik Lal Yadav, Resident of Village-Dharhara, Police Station-Raghopur, District- Supaul. ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Kamleshwari Yadav, S/o Bihari Yadav 3. Prabhu Yadav, S/o Kusum Lal Yadav 4. Permeshwar Yadav, S/o Kusum Lal Yadav 5. Kali Charan Yadav, S/o Bihari Yadav 6. Kusum Lal Yadav, S/o Munga Lal Yadav 7. Kameshwar Yadav, S/o Kali Charan Yadav. All resident of village Dharahara, Police Station-Raghopur, District-Supaul. …………..Opposite Parties. For the Petitioner : Ms. Juhi Kumari, Advocate For the State : Sri Ram Priyasharan Singh, A.P.P. ----------- 2 24-06-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner, who is the informant of Raghopur P.S. Case No. 64/94 is aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27th June, 2008 recorded by the learned 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Supaul in Sessions Trial No. 3 of 1999 whereby the accused (opposite Party Nos. 2 to 7 herein) have been acquitted of the charge(s) framed under sections 341, 323, 447, 307, 324, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution got examined only three witnesses. PWs. 2 and 3 have been found highly interested witnesses. 2 Learned trial court on evaluation of their evidence, has found and held that they are not trustworthy, as they indulged in exaggeration of the prosecution case at different stages in course of their respective depositions. It has also noticed the fact that neither the informant nor the Investigating Officer of the case has been examined to support the case. The trial court is of the view that non-examination of the Investigating Officer has caused serious prejudice to the prosecution as some of these witnesses had made contradictory statements in course of investigation before the Investigating Officer (under section 161 of the Code of Criminal procedure). Learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to demonstrate before this court that the judgment suffers from any patent illegality and/or perversity. This court finds no reason to interfere with the order. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Sujit (Kishore K.Mandal, J. )