IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.535 of 2009 KRISHNA DEVI W/O JAGADEEP PANDEET --- PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. BHUSHAN PANDEET S/O RAMADHAR PANDEET 3. UPENDRA PANDEET S/O SIRNATH PANDEET 4. RAMESH PANDEET S/O RAMADHAR PANDEET 5. KISHU KUMAR PANDEET @ KRISHNA KUMAR PANDEET S/O SRIDHAR PANDEET 6. KAMLESH PANDEET S/O SRIDHAR PANDEET 7. SAILESH PANDEET S/O SRIDHAR PANDEET --- OPP. PARTIES. For the petitioner : Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, Advocate. For the State : Mr. S.A.Ahmad, APP ----------- 02. 09.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is the informant (PW5) and therefore igniter of the criminal proceeding which gave rise to Tr. No. 659 of 2009 of the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class , Jehanabad wherein learned trial Court by judgment and order dated 06.02.2009 on a consideration of the materials on record found that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge(s) beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts and as such the accuseds ( opposite party nos. 2 to 7 herein) were acquitted of the charge(s) punishable under Sections 448,323 of the Penal Code. From the evidence on record it appears that both the parties are agnates. Learned trial Court has noted that a Title Suit was filed and pending between the parties relating to certain pieces of land. It has further found that PW5 has been supported only by one prosecution witness namely PW3. From the deposition of PW3 it has been inferred that he is also an 2 interested witness. Keeping all these facts in the back drop learned trial Court considered the injury report (Exhibit 4) brought on record in the light of deposition of the doctor (PW6). On consideration of these materials trial Court has concluded in paragraph nos. 15 and 16 of the impugned judgment that prosecution case is shrouded under a cloud and it cannot be said that the case has been proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubts. In my view, learned trial Court has taken a view which seems to be a reasonable and/or possible view based on the appraisal of the evidence. It cannot be said to be perverse and/or perfunctory. This Court is not inclined to interfere therewith. The application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)