IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.275 of 2009 PRASADI SAO KESHRI …PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. BISHUN PRAJAPAT 3. HARI PRAJAPAT 4. KARU PRAJAPAT 5. SHREE PRAJAPAT 6. PAPPU PRAJAPAT 7. LOTTAN PRAJAPAT 8. SHAMBHU PRAJAPAT 9. KAILA PRAJAPAT 10. BAGIRATH PRAJAPAT …OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioners :Mr.Uma Kant Prasad & :Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Singh For the State :Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP ----------- 03. 25.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and the State. Petitioner is the informant (P.W.8.) He is aggrieved by judgment and order of acquittal dated 25.10.2008, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Gaya in G.R. Case No.1835/2004/Trial Case No.32/2008, whereby learned court below acquitted the accuseds (o.p.nos.2 to 10 herein) of the charge(s) punishable under section 147,447,427,504 and 380 IPC. The bone of contention is a piece of land on which the informant is said to have constructed a house which was allegedly demolished and ransacked at the hands of the accused(s). At the trial, eight witnesses were examined. Learned trial court on a consideration of materials available on record did not find the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4 trustworthy. P.Ws.5 and 2 7 were already declared hostile. Learned trial court appraised the evidence of P.W.6 and found him not an eye-witness to the occurrence. Trial court has also considered the documents placed on record by the parties and found that documents of title relating to the said land were not brought on record by the prosecution. In view of these facts appearing from records, it was found that prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges against the accused persons beyond shadow of reasonable doubts. This Court does not find any patent illegality in the order meriting interference. The application lacks merit which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )