Case Facts:
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.601 of 2012 (2) dt.05-07-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.601 of 2012 ====================================================== Abdul Rasid, Son of Late Jhangru Mian, Resident of Village – Baraura, P.S.-Agiaon (Garhani), District-Bhojpur. .... .... Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Fulmohammad, Son of Late Jhangru Mian 3. Md. Niyazuddin, Son of Late Jhangru Mian 4. Yatiman Bibi, wife of Saifuddin 5. Md. Manuddin, Son of Late Jhangru Mian All are resident of Village-Baraura, P.S.-Agiaon (Garhani), District-Bhojpur. .... .... Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Madanjeet Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) 2 05-07-2012 Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the State. The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 5th of April, 2012 passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Ara in Sessions Trial No. 299 of 2001 whereby four accused namely respondent nos. 2 to 5 Fulmohammad, Md. Niyazuddin, Yatiman Bibi and Md. Manuddin respectively granted benefit of Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act during conviction under [STATUTE] . Grievance of the appellant is with regard to Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.601 of 2012 (2) dt.05-07-2012 inadequate sentence and also that the opposite party should have been convicted under [STATUTE] . The case is registered under [STATUTE] . Subsequently, the case of Firoz Alam was split up because he was found juvenile and the opposite parties were put on trial. Charge under [STATUTE] was framed and the witnesses were examined. Though the specific case was that the accused persons were responsible in causing serious injuries but the doctor was not examined. Even the investigating officer was also not examined. The court was left with no option but to consider the oral testimony of the witnesses and that testimony remained uncorroborated. Considering only unsupported oral testimony, the judgment of the trial court acquitting the opposite parties is correct and needs no interference. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. KKSINHA/- (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 323

Statute Text:
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.