Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1067 of 2012 ====================================================== Gafoor son of Late Jumman resident of village- Boriya, Police Station- Jokihat, District- Araria. .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Farooque Azam son of Nawab Ali 3. Rajaul @ Rajabul son of Nawab Ali 4. Sayeeda Khatoon wife of Farooque Azam Sl. No. 2 to 4 resident of village- Boriya, Police Station- Jokihat, District Araria. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Md. Naushaduzzhoha For the Respondent/s : Mr. A. Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) 3 06-11-2012 The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 30th March 2012 passed in Sessions Trial No. 78 of 2009/ Trial No. 9 of 2009 arising out of Jokihat P. S. Case No. 35 of 2004 corresponding G. R. No. 580 of 2004 registered under [STATUTE] whereby respondents nos. 2 to 4, Farooque Ajam, Rajaul @ Rajabul, Sayeeda Khatoon were held guilty only under [STATUTE] and they were released after due admonition. The appellant is aggrieved on account of non- conviction of the accused persons under [STATUTE] . Inadequacy of sentence has also been assailed. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1067 of 2012 (3) dt.06-11-2012 2 With regard to an occurrence of 27.4.2004 the case was registered under [STATUTE] . In course of trial positive evidence was led on behalf of defence that one of the accused had delivered a bady child and was admitted in the clinic. That certificate has been proved by the doctor. The case was that injured was referred to Purnea Hospital for further treatment but no any medical prescription was produced with regard to that. The Court after considering the evidence found that no chit of paper has been filed upon which any interference could be drawn that the case should have been covered under [STATUTE] . The Court after analyzing the evidence has passed a reasoned order. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Court ought to have been held the accused guilty under [STATUTE] also. After considering the facts and circumstances and evidence brought on record, we are of the view that the reasoning given by the Court for convicting the accused for lesser offence is neither illegal nor perverse. In the result, we find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. In view of the fact that the appeal has been dismissed Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1067 of 2012 (3) dt.06-11-2012 3 on merit, no separate discussion is required to be made in the petition filed under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. Interlocutory application also stands dismissed. Kanchan/- (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.