Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1164 of 2008 ====================================================== Santosh Kumar Verma son of Rajdeo Singh, resident of village Madurna, P.S. Chainpur, District Kaimur (Bhabua), at present resident of Bhabua Ward No. 1, P.S. Bhabua, District Kaimur (Bhabua). .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Pappu Singh son of Jang Bahadur Singh, resident of village- Vekash, P.S. Bhabua, District- Kaimur (Bhabua). .... .... Opp. Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Sunil, Adv. For the State : Mr. Mustaque Alam, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 4 04-09-2012 After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or procedural irregularity in the impugned judgment dated 18th July 2008 passed in Session Case No. 156 of 2007/ 46 of 2007 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-5, Kaimur at Bhabua, so far it has acquitted the accused opposite party no.2 for charges under [STATUTE] as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Admittedly, by the impugned judgment itself, co-accused Azad Ram has been held to be guilty for commission of the crime in question and after his conviction, appropriate order of sentence has been passed against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the matter at great length and has submitted that the prosecution evidence has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and therefore, the learned trial court has come to a wrong conclusion for acquitting the opposite party no.2. However, he has not pointed Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1164 of 2008 (4) dt.04-09-2012 2 / 2 2 out any legal infirmity or procedural irregularity committed by the learned trial court for coming to a conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts against co- accused, namely, Azad Ram, but at the same time the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts, so far opposite party no.2 is concerned. Learned trial court has recorded findings of fact that the land dispute was going on between the petitioner at the one side and the opposite party no.2 at the other side. The opposite party no.2 has also taken a plea of alibi that at the relevant time he was working at Surat within the State of Gujrat and that plea of alibi has been accepted by the learned trial court. It is well settled the revisional court should normally avoid the reappraisal of evidence for coming to different conclusion than that of trial court. In the given facts of the case, this Court does not find any good and cogent ground to interfere with the impugned judgment, so far it has acquitted the O.P. No.2. Consequently, the application fails 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.