IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.896 of 2009 TIRATH RAM SON OF LATE VAIKUNTH RAM, R/O- SARWAN BHADSARA, P.S.- BIKRAM, DISTRICT- PATNA Versus 1. DEO KUMAR SINGH SON OF RAMDEO SINGH 2. SUBHASH SINGH SON OF JANGA SINGH 3. SIYA RAM SINGH SON OF JIT NARAYAN SINGH ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE SARWAN BHADSARA, P.S.- BIKRAM, DISTRICT- PATNA. 4. STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 06.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is the informant (P.W. 3) of Bikram P.S. Case No. 29 of 1981 instituted under Section 436 IPC which gave to Sessions Trial No. 331 of 1982 wherein learned Trial Court on a consideration of evidence brought on record found that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond shadow of reasonable doubts. Thus giving benefit of doubt, the accuseds (O.P. Nos. 1 to 3) herein were acquitted of the charge. This is what the Trial Court has found in paragraph No. 16 of the order: “16. On critical examination of the evidence of the witnesses I find that witnesses are either related or inimical to accused or interested. It has also come in evidence in para-18 of P.W. 1, in para- 5 of P.W. 2 and in para-11 of P.W. 3 that several persons were present at the spot, but none could be examined either by the police or by the prosecution. It has come in evidence that witnesses awoke after ten minutes of setting the house on fire. The house of the accused persons is at a distance of 100 yards and the accused persons stood at a distance of 2 bans appears to be unnatural and not convincing as after commission of occurrence in the night accused persons are normally expected not to 2 remain present at the alleged sight of crime for their identification or implication in the case. In this case I.O. has not been examined. In the instant case it is alleged that besides house hold materials she goat were also burnt, but no postmortem report of she-goat was done, nor burnt articles nor seizure list for the same has been proved by the prosecution. As regard to the place of occurrence I.O. has not been examined for establishment of the P.O. No objective evidence has been proved. The informant and witnesses stood either inimical or interested or related to the accused persons“ In my view, the orders impugned cannot be said to be perverse and/or patently illegal. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J)