IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1754 of 2009 Lalmati Devi, wife of Kamal Singh, resident of Village-Itwa Uttar Tola, P.S.-Pachrukhi, District-Siwan. …Informant. …Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Bihar. 2. Nand Lal Singh, son of late Nathuni Singh. 3. Vishambhar Singh, son of late Nathuni Singh. Both are resident of Village-Itwa Uttar Tola, P.S.-Pachrukhi, District-Siwan. ….Accuseds. …Opposite Parties. For the petitioner:- Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For the State:- Dr. Rabindra Kumar, A.P.P. ---------------------------------- 02. 02.12.2011 The informant petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 05.08.2009 passed by Sri Krishna Gopal Divedi, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-4, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 196 of 1991 arising out of Pachrukhi P.S. Case No. 8/89, G.R. No. 1730/89) under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act by which the accused Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that the accused Nand Lal Singh and Vishambhar Singh, Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 have faced the trial for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act for causing the death of Kamal Singh, husband of the informant. During the trial, seven witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. The learned trial Court has found that the evidence of P.W.-4, the informant, Lalmati Devi has not to be trustworthy. During cross- examination, she has stated that she was not deposing in the case that the accused will deliver the possession of the land, but they have not delivered the possession even after giving the assurance to leave the land in her favour. It has been found that the evidence of P.W.-4, the informant is also not trustworthy to be relied upon as her evidence has not been corroborated by any other witness. Considering the evidence on behalf of the prosecution the learned Trial Court has found that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and both the accused have been granted the benefit of doubt and they have been acquitted. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This revision application is dismissed. Kamlesh (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)