Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.661 of 2009 ====================================================== Nand Kishore Singh S/o Ram Chandra Singh, R/o village- Islampur, P.S.- Goraul, District- Vaishali .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Dharam Shila Devi W/o ram Ishwar Singh 3. Ram Ishwar Singh S/o late Dahaur Singh 4. Mukesh Singh S/o Ram Ishwar Singh, O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 are R/o village- Islampur, P.S. Goraul, District- Vaishali. ... .... Respondent/s Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bharat Lal, Advocate Mr. Ram Naresh Singh, Advocate For the O. P.Nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. C. M. Chaurasia, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr. R.C. Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 12-10-2012 Heard the parties. By the impugned judgment and order dated 19th January, 2009 passed in Sessions Trial no. 557 of 2002 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur, the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 4 have been acquitted for charge under [STATUTE] . and the accused opposite party no. 3, Ram Ishwar Singh has further been acquitted for charge under [STATUTE] . It is common case of the parties that with respect to the occurrence dated 22.12.2001 two criminal cases were lodged, one by the present petitioner and other from the side of the accused-opposite parties. It is also not Patna High Court CR. REV. No.661 of 2009 (3) dt.12-10-2012 2/4 in dispute that in the criminal case lodged from the side of the accused persons in which the petitioner and other members of the prosecution party were accused, the trial has concluded and the accused persons of that case have been acquitted on the basis of the compromise having been arrived at between the parties. In the present case also a compromise was filed from both sides, but the offence under [STATUTE] . is not compoundable offence, therefore, the trial proceeded against the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 4. However, on conclusion of the trial, they have also been acquitted by the learned trial court by the impugned judgment by giving the accused persons benefits of doubts. Though ten prosecution witnesses were produced in support of the prosecution version, but the learned trial court, on meticulous examination and detailed consideration of the evidence of all the witnesses, has come to a finding that there are vital contradictions in the ocular evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and further medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution allegations, and therefore, it has concluded that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all Patna High Court CR. REV. No.661 of 2009 (3) dt.12-10-2012 3/4 reasonable shadow of doubts. The learned trial court has further noticed that the present case was a counter blast of the case lodged from the side of the accused persons. By taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects, besides others, the learned trial court has extended the benefits of doubts to the accused persons and has acquitted the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 4 for all the charges. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the validity of the impugned judgment primarily on the ground that the prosecution evidence has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court, and, therefore, it has come to a wrong conclusion. According to the learned counsel, if the evidence of the witnesses are reappraised by the Court, then that may result in conviction of the accused persons for charges framed against them. It is well settled that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, the High Court should refrain from reappraising the prosecution evidence for coming to a different conclusion than that of the learned trial court. No other legal infirmity or procedural irregularity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.661 of 2009 (3) dt.12-10-2012 4/4 In the given facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to exercise its revisional jurisdiction for setting aside and reversing the impugned judgment of acquittal. Consequently, the application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. RPS/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, 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.