IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.487 of 2007 SHAILA DEVI W/O LATE AKHILESH KUAMR --- PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. KAKESHWARI DEVI W/O LATE BRAJ KISHORE MAHTO 3. NIRIA DEVI W/O ASHUTOSH KUMAR 4. ASHUTOSH KUMAR S/O LATE BRAJKISHORE MAHTO 5. ARUN KUMAR SON OF LATE BRAJ KISHORE MAHTO --- OPP. PARTIES. For the Petitioner : Mr. Asuthosh Kumar & Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocates. For the State : Mr. J.K.Singh no.1, APP For the O.Ps : Mr. Rewati Kant Raman, Advocate. ----------- 07 08.09.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner is the informant. She is aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patna in Trial no. 1148 of 2006. By the order impugned the accuseds (opposite parties herein) have been acquitted of the charge(s) punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 420 and 120B/34 of the Penal Code. At the trial six prosecution witnesses were examined to prove the charge(s). Two of them, namely, PWs 3 and 5 have not supported the prosecution case, and as such they have been declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution. PW1 is the mother whereas PW4 is the informant. Learned trial Court appraised their evidence in the light of the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW6). On a consideration of their evidence trial Court has come to the conclusion that the case was lodged six years after the death of the husband of the informant which was aimed at seeking partition in respect of the property of the husband. Learned trial Court in paragraph no. 17 of the judgment has considered the improbabilities/inconsistencies in the prosecution case. Having found so the Court below has recorded the judgment and order of acquittal. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. In my view, the reasons assigned by learned trial Court cannot be said to be wholly perverse and/or perfunctory. There is no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)