IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.382 of 2008 NAGINA PRASAD SON OF LATE HARIHAR SINGH, R/O- VILLAGE BEUR COLONY, HASANPURA ROAD, NEAR MAHAVIR MANDIR, P.S.- PHULWARI SHARIF, DISTRICT- PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAMADHAR SHARMA, SON OF LATE BALESHWAR SHARMA 3. KAUSHAL SHARMA, SON OF PREMADHAR SHARMA @ RAMADHAR SHARMA 4. SUBHASH SHARMA, SON OF RAMADHAR SHARMA. 5. SHANKAR DAYAL ROY, SON OF LATE SURENDRA NATH ROY ALL RESIDENTS OF NEW BEUR COLONY, HASANPURA ROAD, P.S.- PHULWARI SHARIF, DISTRICT- PATNA For the petitioner : Mr. Amresh kumar Sinha, Advocate For the O.Ps : Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP ----------- 3 26.08.2010 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, opposite party and the State. Informant (P.W. 4) is the petitioner. He is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21.1.2008 passed in Tr. No. 1305 of 2008 (G.R. case no. 1021 of 2004) whereby the accused (O.P nos. 2 to 5) have been acquitted of the charge(s) punishable under diverse sections of Indian Penal Code including Sections 323 and 379IPC. From the evidence of P.W. 1, it appears that both the parties are on loggers head. One of the accused Subhash Sharma has lodged case against the present informant and others. 06 prosecution witnesses have been examined in this case. Learned trial court appraised their evidence. It has been found that the deposition of the witnesses suffer from serious contradictions. Learned court has also doubted the claim of the informant that initially he was assaulted by the butt of the pistol 2 and subsequently by katar (a sharp weapon). Learned Trial Court was persuaded to observe that in fact the witness describe the manner of occurrences in divergent ways. The allegation constituting offence under Section 379 IPC has been also disbelieved in view of the contradictions appearing in the respective deposition of the witnesses. In the back drop of these facts borne out from the record, learned trial court has acquitted the accuseds (O.P. nos. 2 to 5) of the charge(s). This Court does not find any patent illegality in such consideration of the matter by the learned trial court. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )