Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1031 of 2012 ====================================================== Bijendra Rishi, Son of Ramjee Rishi, Resident of Village – Simariya, P.S. – Kasba, District – Purnea. .... .... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Rajendra Yadav, Son of Late Kailash Yadav 3. Pradeep Yadav, Son of Late Kailash Yadav 4. Dilip Yadav, Son of Bulaki Yadav 5. Indrasan @ Indranand Biswas, Son of Late Narayan Biswas 6. Md. Ajiuddin, Son of Late Rashid 7. Jagdish Prasad Singh, Son of Siya Saran Lal Singh 8. Baleshwra Mahto, Son of Jharu Mahto 9. Mahajni Devi, Wife of Rajendra Yadav 10. Anju Devi, Wife of Pradeep Yadav Respondent Nos. 2 to 10 are resident of Village – Simariya, P.S. – Kasba, District – Purnea. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) 4 22-11-2012 Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and for the State. The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 23rd November, 2011 whereby the accused persons Rajendra Yadav, Pradeep Yadav, Dilip Yadav, Indrasan @ Indranand Biswas, Md. Ajiuddin, Jagdish Prasad Singh, Baleshwar Mahto, Mahajni Devi and Anju Devi were acquitted from the charges under [STATUTE] . Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1031 of 2012 (4) dt.22-11-2012 2 Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial court has erred in disbelieving the injury report which is in terms of allegation as well as the fact of a delay which has caused prejudiced to the prosecution case. Heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment. It appears from the discussion that there was no dragging mark or no blood was found therefore, the place of occurrence itself has come under cloud. The manner of allegation has not been corroborated by the medical evidence. These were the grounds which created doubt in the mind of the trial court. The judgment of acquittal can only be interfered with if it is found perverse or beyond record. The judgment under appeal does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The substantial justice has been done. In that view of the matter the judgment requires no interference. In the result, this appeal is without merit and it is accordingly dismissed. KKSINHA/- (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 307

Statute Text:
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Attempt to murder. Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by Life Convicts: When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.