Madan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

.... .... Opposite party /s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Advocate For the Opp. Party/s : Mr. J. Kumar Roy-1, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 18-07-2012 Heard. The petitioner, being informant, has preferred the present revision application under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), assailing the correctness and legality of the judgment and order dated 5th June, 2010 passed in Sessions Trial No. 749 of 2005 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, III, West Champaran, Bettiah, whereby though accused opposite party nos. 2 to 12 have been convicted under sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, Patna High Court CR. REV. No.925 of 2010 (2) dt.18-07-2012 but they have been acquitted for the charges under sections 307/34, 324, 325 I.P.C. and some other allied offences.

The grievance of the petitioner is that on the basis of the materials produced by the prosecution, accused-opposite parties should have been convicted for the charges under sections 325 and 307/34 I. P.C. also. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that altogether 12 witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution and they have supported the prosecution case. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that the doctor, who examined the injured persons, has not been produced on behalf of the prosecution during the course of the trial. On consideration of the materials on record and on perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court, this Court finds that two injured persons, namely, Nathuni Yadav and Rambhu Yadav did not turn up during the course of trial to support the prosecution case. X-ray plate and X-ray report of injured Jagdish Yadav was also not brought on record to prove the case of the prosecution that he had sustained fracture injury in his arm.

Learned trial court has considered the evidence of the witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution in full details, but taking into consideration the entire factual background, the learned Patna High Court CR. REV. No.925 of 2010 (2) dt.18-07-2012 trial court has given the benefits of doubts to the accused persons for the charges under sections 307/34, 325 I.P.C. and some other allied offences. However, on the basis of the materials produced by the prosecution, the accused persons have been convicted for the charges under sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been released on due admonition in exercise of his powers under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. After having heard the parties and taking into consideration the aforesaid factual aspect, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order, so far learned trial court has acquitted the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 12 for different charges indicated above. Consequently, application is, accordingly, dismissed. RPS/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)