Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.907 of 2009 ====================================================== Arun Kumar Singh son of Ram Sagar Singh, resident of Village- Sinuara, P.S. Bahadurpur, District- Darbhanga. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Rama Nand Singh 3. Satyendra Singh Both sons of late Parikshan Singh, residents of village- Sinuara, P.S. Bahadurpur, District Darbhanga. .... .... Opp. Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, APP For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, with Mr. Akhileshwar Singh, Advocates. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 4 06-11-2012 After having heard the parties this Court does not find any legal infirmity or procedural irregularity, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction in the impugned judgment dated 7th March 2009 passed in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Darbhanga, whereby accused opposite parties have been acquitted of all the charges under [STATUTE] . Though occurrence in question is said to have taken place on 12.05.2003 and the petitioner is said to have received injuries at the hands of the accused persons, but it is not under dispute that in the present case neither the Doctor was produced on behalf of the prosecution nor the injury report of the informant was brought on record. Further it is also not under dispute that the Investigating Officer, who conducted investigation and submitted charge sheet, was not produced during the course of trial. Taking into Patna High Court CR. REV. No.907 of 2009 (4) dt.06-11-2012 2 / 2 2 consideration the aforesaid circumstances, besides the other infirmities in the prosecution case, the learned trial court has given the benefits of doubts to the accused persons and has acquitted the accused party no. 2 and 3 of all the charges. In the given facts of the case, this Court does not find any good ground for reversing and setting aside the judgment of acquittal. Consequently, the application has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. BTiwary/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 324

Statute Text:
Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.