IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1390 of 2009 Sushil Kumar son of Shree Awdhesh Pathak, residents of village Bawan Bigha Kanhouli, Police Station Mithanpura and District- Muzaffarpur. … Petitioner. Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Vijay Bhagat son of Shree Raja Ram Bhagat, residents of village Kanhouli Khadi Bhandar Road, Police Station Mithanpura and District- Muzaffarpur. .. Opposite parties. ----- For the petitioner : Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. For the State :Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, APP ------ 3. 19.10.2011 The informant- petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 13.5.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 181 of 2005 by which the opposite party no. 2, Vijay Bhagat has been acquitted. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 7.5.2003 minor sister of the petitioner went to her school but she did not return till evening. Even after search she could not be traced out. The informant came to know that Rajesh Kumar son of Bijay Bhagat, opposite party no. 2 was missing from his house. The informant, his family members and relatives contacted with Bijay Bhagat and his family 2 members. During talk it transpired that Rajesh Kumar son of Bijay Bhagat, opposite party no. 2 enticed and kidnapped the victim girl and the family members of Rajesh helped him. The informant and his family members requested Bijay Bhagat and his family members to call back the victim girl so that the prestige can be saved. On the basis of written petition of the petitioner Mithanpura P. S. Case No. 60 of 2003 was registered under Section 366(A) read with Section 34 of the IPC. After investigation, the police submitted charge- sheet against Vijay Bhagat showing Prakash Bhagat, Rajesh Kumar, Pankaj Bhagat and Renu Devi absconder. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the trial of the absconding accused was separated. The case was committed to the court of Sessions. After trial, the accused- opposite party no. 2 has been acquitted. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. It appears from the impugned judgment that the prosecution has examined altogether 10 witnesses. The defence of the accused is that the victim was in love with Rajesh Kumar and 3 she left her house and went along with Rajesh Kumar. The victim married Rajesh Kumar and she is living with him as husband and wife. The accused had no hand in inducing or kidnapping the victim, Archana Kumari. It also appears from the impugned judgment that the learned trial court has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and has come to finding that victim was recovered by I. O. (P.W. 8). P. W. 8 has disclosed in the evidence that victim was recovered from the road situated near Khadi Bhandar and not from the house of Bijay Bhagat, opposite party no. 2. D. W. 2 Archana Kumari, alleged victim of the occurrence, has also disclosed that she returned to her house after 4-5 days of leaving the house. She has denied to have been recovered from the house of Bijay Bhagat, opposite party no. 2. Considering the facts and circumstances opposite party no. 2 has been acquitted. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.) 4