IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.235 of 2009 GAYATRI DEVI …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. YOGENDRA GUPTA 3. JAY PRAKASH GUPTA 4. SANJAY GUPTA 5. PHAGU SOREN @ PHENKU SAUTAR 6. PHAKIRA PASWAN …OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 2. 29.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the State. Petitioner is the wife of the deceased. The igniter of the case (informant) was subsequently made accused and convicted by the impugned order. Petitioner is aggrieved by that part of the judgment and order dated 10th/12th December,2008, passed by learned trial Judge in S.Tr.No.344/1999 whereby on a consideration of materials available on record, o.p.nos. 2 to 6 herein were acquitted of the charges punishable under sections 302/34, 201 and 364 IPC. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The deceased was last seen with the informant-turned accused, namely, Shaker Gupta who has been convicted under the impugned judgment. Ext.A is the confessional statement of co-accused Nato Gupta on the basis whereof the dead body of the deceased was recovered. Said Nato Gupta is facing separate trial. So far as o.p.nos. 2 to 6 herein are concerned, learned trial court in paragraphs 11 and 13 considered the materials on record available against them and has come to the conclusion that they 2 were grossly deficient in substantiating the charge(s) against them. The view taken by learned trial court in acquitting o.p.nos.2 to 6 cannot be said to be patently illegal and/or perfunctory. The application lacks merit which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )