IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.61 of 2008 HARINESHWAR CHOUDHARY SON OF LATE RAJESHWAR CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHAHPUR, P.S.- PANDAUL, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. JAI PRAKASH CHOUDHARY SON OF LATE MUNGA LAL CHOUDHARY 3. SHATRUGHAN CHOUDHARY SON OF LATE MUNGA LAL CHOUDHARY 4. CHANDRA BELI DEVI WIFE OF JAI PRAKASH CHOUDHARY 5. KALI DEVI WIFE OF SHATRUGHAN CHOUDHARY ALL 2 TO 5 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SHAHPUR, P.S.- PANDAUL, DISTRICT- MADHUBNAI. For the petitioner : Mr. Gagandeo Yadav, Advocate. For the O.Ps. : Mr. Yogendra Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 4 17.08.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner is the informant of the case which gave rise to Sessions Trial No. 383 of 2003 in which the accuseds were tried and acquitted of the offence punishable under diverse sections including Section 307 IPC. Learned trial court has recorded more than one reason for not accepting the prosecution case. It has been found that the injured (P.W. 3) received four injuries whereas the F.I.R. discloses only two injuries. It has further taken note of the fact that the F.I.R. was lodged after four days. The court has also taken note of the fact that some of the witnesses cited in the charge-sheet have not been produced by the prosecution. On the contrary, the defence has produced those witnesses who all have contradicted the prosecution case. It has also been found that the parties are on litigating terms and 2 as such the evidence required in depth examination. The reasons of acquittal can be seen from paragraph nos. 13, 17, 18 and 20 of the judgment. This Court does not find any patent illegality in the impugned judgment meriting interference. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )