IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.746 of 2009 PARMANAND PRASAD …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MR. RANJIT KUMAR 3. MR. AJIT KUMAR 4. MR. AVINASH KUMAR MAHTO 5. SANT KUMAR MAHTO …OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 02. 25.01.2011 Heard both sides. Petitioner is the informant and thus the igniter of the criminal proceeding which gave rise to Sessions Trial No. 644/2000. By the order impugned, learned trial court on an appraisal of materials/evidence adduced at the trial, has acquitted the opposite parties of the charges punishable under 307/34 IPC including section 27 of the Arms Act. As many as 11 PWs were examined on behalf of prosecution. P.Ws. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 & 8 who all were named in the charge-sheet appeared but did not support the prosecution case. The doctor, the Investigating Officer, and the informant could not be examined in the case. Learned trial court in paragraph 11 has observed as under: “11. In this case, informant Parmanand Prasad has not been examined and no reason has been assigned by the prosecution for his non-examination. From the record, it appears that summon and warrants were issued upon the P.Ws. but the informant, I. O. and doctor did not appear. It further appears that a letter to D.M. and S.P. was also written for production of I.O., doctor and informant in spite of that they did not turn up to give evidence in the court. It further appears that a letter to D.G.P. Patna is also written by the court for production of I.O. but the I.O. did not turn up. Before closing the case, 2 again warrant was issued upon the informant on 21.5.08 even then the informant did not turn up to support his case.” Left with the deposition of P.Ws.1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 and 11, the trial court has found that P.Ws. 9,10 and 11 are only the formal witnesses. Rest of the witnesses have not supported the prosecution and, as such, they have been declared hostile. In view of the attending facts appearing from records, learned trial court has recorded the judgment and order of acquittal. This Court after hearing the parties is satisfied that no illegality much less patent illegality as such has been committed by learned trial court. The application is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )