Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1017 of 2009 ====================================================== Banshidhar Gupta , son of Late Garbhu Sao, resident of Village- Giriyak, P.S. Giriyak, District- Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Shayam Sunder Singh @ Shyam Sunder Singh, son of Prayag Singh. 3. Anil Singh, son of Shyam Sunder Singh, Both 2 and 3 are resident of Village- Chandi Mau, P.S. Silao, District- Nalanda, at present residing at Mohalla Pachrukhiya (Rajgir), P.S. Rajgir, District- Nalanda. .... .... Opp. Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pramod Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Opp. Party/s : Mr. Matloob Rab, Addl. P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 7 19-06-2012 The petitioner has filed the present application challenging the validity and correctness of judgment and order dated 30th May 2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 454 of 1998/141 of 2007 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif, whereby on conclusion of trial Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted, as the prosecution has failed to prove its charge under [STATUTE] against the accused persons (Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3). From the materials available on record, it appears that the prosecution case was started as far back as in 1994. After Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1017 of 2009 (7) dt.19-06-2012 2 / 2 2 commitment of case in the year 1998, charge was framed against the accused persons and some witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Admittedly, the trial remained pending for quite long time and despite sufficient opportunity given to the prosecution, neither Medical Officer, who examined the injured person, nor the Investigating Officer, who conducted investigation, was produced before the trial court. Apparently for proving charge under [STATUTE] , the examination of Medical Officer was must. On appraisal of the evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned trial court has come to a finding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the accused persons. After having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial court. Consequently, the application fails and is accordingly dismissed. BTiwary/- (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.