IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1485 of 2007 GANAUR SAHNI @ RUDAL SAHANI …PETITIONER Versus 1. RAM PUKAR CHAUDHARY 2. RAJ KUMAR RAI 3. DEVENDRA RAI 4. RAMADHAR CHAUDHARY 5. BAIJNATH CHAUDHARY 6. DHETHAM CHAUDHARY @ CHHEDAN CHAUDHARY 7. DARSHAN CHAUDHARY 8. JITENDRA KUMAR CHAUDHARY 9. THE STATE OF BIHAR …OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioner : Mr.Alok Kr.Sinha For the o.p.1 to 8 : Mr.Parthsarthy & : Mr.Manish kr. No.2 For the State : Mr. Upadhyaya,APP ----------- 03. 26.08.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Maker of the FIR (P.W.7) is the petitioner. He has questioned the sustainability of the order of acquittal recorded by learned trial Judge in S.T.No.419/1996. This Court perused the observations/findings recorded by learned trial Judge at paragraphs 7 and 8. It appears that witnesses, namely, Upendra Sharma and Jugal Sahni cited in the charge-sheet as well as in the FIR, were not examined on behalf of the prosecution. Learned trial court further found that the farde-bayan (Ext.2) has been, in substance, disowned by the informant (P.w.7). The signatory of the FIR, namely, P.W.1(Gulo Sahni) who is the full brother of the informant has also not stated in course of his examination in chief that he was present at the hospital when the farde-bayan was recorded 2 whereon he put his signature. In the backdrop of these facts appearing from records, learned trial court appraised the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case/charge beyond shadow of reasonable doubts. This Court does not find any patent illegality in such consideration of the matter by learned trial court. The application lacks merit which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )