Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.456 of 2009 ====================================================== Bauku Yadav S/o late Rabbi Yadav R/o village- Lakshmanpur Ghonghia, P.S.-Bahera, District- Darbhanga .... ....(Informant) Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Lakshman Yadav S/o Mahabir Yadav 3. Laxmi Yadav S/o Mahabir Yadav 4. Ramji Yadav S/o Dasai Yadav 5. Uday Yadav S/o Dasai Yadav 6. Isaki Yadav S/o Basudeo Yadav 7. Negar Yadav S/o Isaki Yadav 8. Mahabir Yadav @ Mahabir Prasad Yadav S/o late Khatpati Yadav, all R/I village- Lakshmanpur Ghonghia, P.S.- Bahera, District- Darbhanga .... .... (Accused-Appellants) Opp. 2nd Party ….. … Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr. R.N. Jha, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 10-10-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. Though notice was issued to the opposite party nos. 2 to 8 by the order dated 3.11.2010 passed by a Bench of this Court, and though the opposite party nos. 2 to 8 entered appearance through a lawyer, but, unfortunately, when the matter was called out yesterday i.e. 9.10.2012 for hearing, none was present on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 to 8. However, the matter was passed over by an oral order, with a hope that counsel for accused- opposite party nos. 2 to 8 shall appear on the next date. When the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.456 of 2009 (3) dt.10-10-2012 2/5 matter has been taken up today for its final disposal, all hopes have belied and even today, unfortunately, none is appearing on behalf of the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 8. The petitioner, being the informant of the criminal case, has assailed the validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 8.12.2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2007 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Darbhanga, whereby the appeal filed on behalf of the accused- opposite party nos. 2 to 8 has been allowed, after reversing and setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial court, and, by giving the benefit of doubts, the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 8 have been acquitted of all the charges. It appears that with respect to an occurrence, alleged to have been taken place on 21.5.2000, the petitioner lodged a criminal case giving rise to Bahera P.S. Case No. 107 of 2000 dated 21.5.2000 for the offences under [STATUTE] as also under section 27 of the Arms Act. However, during the course of investigation, the prosecution allegation, as disclosed in the F.I.R., was not fully supported by independent witnesses, and only part of the prosecution case was supported. Therefore, on close of the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.456 of 2009 (3) dt.10-10-2012 3/5 investigation, the police submitted chargesheet under [STATUTE] . only. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was transferred to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Civil Court, Benipur for trial and disposal. The charge was framed against the accused-opposite parties for the offences under [STATUTE] . and in support of the prosecution case only four P. Ws. were examined. However, on conclusion of trial, by the judgment and order dated 18.12.2006 passed in T.R. No. 105/2006/ G. R. No. 107/2000 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, civil court, Benipur the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 8 were held guilty and were convicted for charges under [STATUTE] . Accused-opposite party no. 2, Lakshman Yadav and accused-opposite party no. 3, Laxmi Yadav were given benefits of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and they have been released on due admonition in terms of section 3 of the said Act. However, accused-opposite party nos. 4 to 8 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under [STATUTE] . All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 8, being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of Patna High Court CR. REV. No.456 of 2009 (3) dt.10-10-2012 4/5 sentence dated 18.12.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Benipur in T.R. No. 105 of 2006/ G.R. No.107 of 2000, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2007, which has been allowed by the impugned judgment dated 8th December, 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. -3, Darbhanga and all of them have been acquitted for all the charges. Hence, the present revision application on behalf of the informant-petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned appellate judgment only on the ground that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has not been properly appreciated by the learned lower appellate court and, therefore, it has come to a wrong conclusion. According to him, if the evidence of the P. Ws. are reappraised and considered in its proper prospective, then the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court is fit to be affirmed. It is well settled that appeal is a continuation of trial. The learned lower appellate court was fully empowered and well within its jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence and materials produced on behalf of the prosecution and come to a different conclusion than that of the learned trial court. On perusal of the impugned judgment, this Court finds that the learned lower Patna High Court CR. REV. No.456 of 2009 (3) dt.10-10-2012 5/5 appellate court has scrutinised the evidence of the witnesses and, thereafter, has come to a finding that the prosecution has not been able to p

Applicable IPC Section: 341

Statute Text:
Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. Wrongfully restraining any person. Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.