IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.367 of 2007 1. INDRADEO KUMAR YADAV @ INDRADEO YADAV SON OF TRILOKI YADAV (INFORMANT). 2. BHUNESHWAR YADAV, SON OF MOGAL YADAV ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE GANDA, P.S.- SONO (CHARKA PATHTHAL), IN THE DISTRICT OF JAMUI. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BALESHWAR RABIDAS SON OF GOPAL RAVIDAS 3. REWA RABIDAS SON OF HODI RAVIDAS 4. MUNSHI RABIDAS SON OF GOPAL RAVIDAS 5. LAKHAN RABIDAS SON OF REWA RAVIDAS 6. KAILASH RABIDAS SON OF REWA RAVIDAS 7. SHIV KUMAR RAVIDAS SON OF REWA RAVIDAS 8. ROHIT RABIDAS SON OF REWA RAVIDAS ALL R/O- VILLAGE GANDA, P.S.- SONO (CHARKA PATHTHAL), IN THE DISTRICT OF JAMUI. For the petitioners : Tannu Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ram Chandra Singh, APP. For the O.P. : Mr. S.A. Khan, Sr. Advocate ----------- 7 25.04.2011 As prayed, let name of petitioner No. 2 be deleted from the array of parties. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and O.P. Nos. 2 to 8. Petitioner, who is igniter of the criminal proceeding being informant of Sono (Charka Pathar) P.S. Case No. 93 of 1996, is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28.11.2006 passed on Cr. Appeal No. 172 of 2002 whereby on a reappraisal of the evidence on record, the appeal preferred by O.P. Nos. 2 to 8 herein was allowed and the judgment and order of conviction dated 18.12.2002 passed in Sessions Case No. 1037/97 was quashed and set aside. It appears from the submissions advanced on 2 behalf of the parties that at least 02 cases were lodged on the same day by the parties to the present proceeding. One was lodged by the present informant whereas another case was lodged against the prosecution side of the present case by the accused of Sono (Charka Pathar) P.S. Case No. 94 of 1995. Yet another case was lodged by the police against one of the witnesses of the present case (P.W. 6) under the Arms Act. Learned Appellate Court in paragraph 23 of the judgment considered the said aspect of the matter. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties drew attention of the Court to that part of appellate judgment wherein learned Trial Court disbelieved the place of occurrence as suggested/propounded by the prosecution side. Considering the reasons assigned in paragraph Nos. 23, 24 and 31 of the Appellate Court judgment, it appears that the same is based on appraisal of evidence on record. A view based on reappraisal of evidence has been taken by learned Lower Appellate Court which have not been shown to be perverse or patently illegal causing any miscarriage of justice. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J)