IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.627 of 2008 PARMILA DEVI ….PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAJENDRA PRASAD BHAGAT 3. NARESH PD. BHAGAT 4. JAI PRAKASH BHAGAT 5. SURESH BHAGAT 6. ARBIND BHAGAT 7. UMACHARAN BHAGAT @ JAISWAL 8. PRADIP PD. BHAGAT @ PRADIP BHAGAT …OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioner :Mr.Umat Kant Prasad & :Mr.Rajeev Ranjan Singh For the o.ps. :Mr.Vivekanand Singh For the State :Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP ----------- 03. 05.10. 2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner is the complainant/informant (P.W.4). On her initiation, a criminal proceeding commenced and ultimately cognizance was taken whereafter the case was committed to the court of sessions leading to trial being Sessions Trial No.563 of 2000. Learned trial court on a consideration of materials on record, came to the conclusion that prosecution has not been able to prove the charge(s) framed against the accused persons(o.ps.2 to 8 herein) beyond shadow of reasonable doubts and, as such, they were acquitted of the charge(s) under sections 147,427 and 436 IPC. Both parties appear to be agnates. The bone of contention is a piece of land which was the subject-matter of the title suit which resulted in a decree. Learned trial court has first considered the stand of the parties as would appear from paragraph 8. On a careful analysis of the evidence on re cord, the trial court has found as under: “Thus there are material contradictions in statements of P.Ws. on all points. In this case it is admitted that parties 2 were in litigating term. Ext.- A goes to show that a panchayati was held on preceding day of alleged occurrence between prosecution side and some of accused persons and panchnama duly signed by husband of P.W.4 and accused Jai Prakash Bhagat was prepared who put their signature on adhesive revenue stamp stuck upon a paper already written by some persons. How it can be said that signature of Yogendra Bhagat was obtained on a blank paper. It appears from Ext.-A that Rajendra Bhagat was a panch in above panchayati. He and his family members have been dragged in this case if Yogenra Bhagat had been examined in this case he would have been cross-examined about above panchayati. Ext.- 3 and A/4 show that parties were aggrieved upon to settle their dispute through panchayati and settlement. Ext.-C certified copy of deposition of complainant in T.S.No.25/95 wherein she has said that she had settled in her parental palace after constructing house with the aid of her husband. In her above deposition she was unable to say the name of accused persons who had set fire in her house located in her sasural. Ext.-D is a certificate of Sarpanch which indicates that complainant and her husband had settled at village Mathurapur, P.S.Bihpur Ext.-E series are certified copy of deposition of Yogenra Bhagat and Arun Pd. Bhagat it indicates long drawn litigation between the parties. The police after investigation of the occurrence in question also came to the conclusion that allegations against accused persons are false.” This Court is of the view that the findings recorded under the impugned order cannot be said to be palpably perverse and/or perfunctory meriting interference. The application is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )