Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.682 of 2008 ====================================================== Shyam Bihari Kahar , son of late Ramadhar Ram, resident of village- Karigai, P.S. Belao, District Kaimur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Angad Singh, s/o Ramkamal Singh 3. Umesh Singh s/o Ramkamal Singh 4. Ramesh Singh, s/o Ram Awatar Singh 5. Awadh Kishor Singh @ Awadh Bihari Singh s/o Ram Awatar Singh 6. Ramkamal Singh, s/o late Swaroop Singh 7. Shyam Bihari Singh s/o Ram Awatar Singh 8. Ram Awatar Singh s/o late Swaroop Singh All resident of village- Karigai, P.S. Belwa, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua) .... .... Opp. Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh-1, Adv. For the State : Mr.Shailendra Kumar-2, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 5 28-08-2012 After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at great length and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or procedural irregularity, resulting into glaring miscarriage of justice which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for reversing and setting aside the impugned judgment dated 25th April 2008 passed in Session Trial No. 04 of 2007/ 09 of 2007 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-5, Kaimur at Bhabhua, acquitting the accused Opposite party no. 2 to 8 for charges under [STATUTE] . Admittedly, the petitioner lodged an FIR against unknown miscreants suspecting their hands for commission of the crime of murder of one Manoj Kumar on 23.01.2006. Apparently, Patna High Court CR. REV. No.682 of 2008 (5) dt.28-08-2012 2 / 2 2 accused opposite party no. 2 to 8 were not named in the FIR as accused. However, during the course of investigation some materials were collected and O.P. No. 2 to 8 were charge- sheeted and finally they were put on trial. It further appears that after 20 days of lodging of the FIR the petitioner filed a protest-cum- complaint petition naming the accused opposite party no. 2 to 8, but learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that the aforesaid protest-cum-complaint petition has not been brought on record during the course of trial. Surprisingly, during the course of trial the informant- petitioner resiled from his own fardbeyan and attempted to give altogether a different story about the occurrence in question. Therefore, the learned trial court has discarded the evidence of the informant (petitioner). After carefully examining the evidence of the prosecution witnesses the learned trial court has recorded a finding of fact that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts. Accordingly, benefits of doubts were given to the accused persons and they were acquitted by the learned trial court by the impugned judgment. In the given facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to exercise its revisional jurisdiction for setting aside and reversing the impugned judgment of acquittal. Consequently, the application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. BTiwary/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 302

Statute Text:
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.