IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1852 of 2009 Vishal Kumar, son of Bipin Pandit, resident of village-Bagahi Ratanpura, P.S.-Bairiya, District- West Champaran. ………..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Raj Kumari Devi, wife of Late Bhola Pandit. 3. Sheo Lal Pandit, son of Late Bhola Pandit. 4. Sona Devi, wife of Sheo Lal Pandit. (All resident of village-Bagahi Patanpura, P.S.- Bairiya, District- West Champaran) …………..Opposite Parties ---------------------------------- 2. 13.12.2011 The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 24.08.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, IV, Bettiah, West Champaran in S.T.No.670/2007 arising out of Bairiya P.S. Case No.126/2006 by which opposite party nos. 2 and 4 have been acquitted and opposite party no.3 has been convicted under Sections 323 and 325 of the I.P.C. and he has been released under the Probation of Offenders Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of sufficient evidence for the conviction of the accused under Section 307 of the I.P.C., the accused have been acquitted. The learned counsel for the State submits 2 that the learned trial court has considered the evidence and passed the impugned order. No interference is required by this Court. While passing the order of acquittal through his judgment dated 24.08.2009, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, IV, Bettiah, West Champaran has discussed the evidence produced on behalf of both the parties. After having heard the learned counsel for both the sides and after going through the judgment, I find that the view taken by the learned Trial Judge was the probable view and in that light, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)