IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.984 of 2009 DIP NARAYAN BHAGAT, S/O- LUXMAN BHAGAT, R/O- VILLAGE PAKPAR, P.S.- BHARGAMA, DISTRICT- ARARIA. ……… Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. ARUN KUMAR BHAGAT, @ AMAR KUMAR BHAGAT, S/O- HARAKH CHAND BHAGAT @ KARI BHAGAT, R/O- RAGHUNATHPUR. 3. ASHOK SRIVASTAVA, S/O- LATE DINESHWAR PRASAD 4. MITHU SRIVASTVA, S/O- ASHOK SRIVASTAVA, BOTH R/O- VILLAGE BHARGAMA, ALL ARE P.S.- BHARGAMA, DISTRICT- ARARIA. ……………… Opposite parties ----------- 2 01.07.2011 Petitioner is informant of Bhargama P.S. Case No. 57 of 2001 which gave rise to Sessions Trial No. 828 of 2006 (Trial No. 37 of 2006) of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-cum-F.T.C.-I, Araria whereby on a consideration of the evidence adduced at the trial, learned Trial Court by judgment dated 29.4.2009 acquitted the accused (O.P. Nos. 2 to 4) of the charges punishable under Sections 328 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. After evaluating the oral evidence, particularly that of P.W. 6 (the informant), learned Court below deduced certain conclusions appearing therefrom which has been culled out in paragraph 16. On close scrutiny of the judgment impugned in the present case, this Court does not find any patent illegality in the consideration of the matter by the learned Trial Court in acquitting the accused of the charge(s). 2 The application lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J)