Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1540 of 2008 ====================================================== Kamleshwari Yadav, son of late Jauhari Yadav, resident of village Thatha, P.S. Mansi, District Khagaria .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Shailesh Yadav, son of late Laxmi Yadav 3. Ramesh Yadav, son of late laxmi Yadav 4. Ganeshi Yadav, son of late laxmi Yadav 5. Ganpati Yadav, son of late Laxmi Yadav 6. Sidesh Yadv, son of Awadhi Yadav 7. Awadhi Yadav, son of late Laxmi Yadav, 2 to 7 are residents of village Thatha, P.O. & P.S. Mansi, District Khagaria .... .... Opposite party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjit Kumar Das, Advocate For the Opp. Party nos. 2 to 7 : Dr. Amrendra Kumar-1, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Ms. Rina Sinha, Addl.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 21-09-2012 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner at great length, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar, as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 7. By the impugned judgment and order dated 17.10.2008 passed in Sessions Case No. 232 of 1996 by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Khagaria, the accused opposite party no. 2 to 7 have been convicted only for charge under Section 323 Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1540 of 2008 (3) dt.21-09-2012 2 / 2 2 of the Indian Penal Code, but they have been acquitted for charges under [STATUTE] . Grievance of the petitioner is that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution and, therefore, by giving benefits of doubts the accused opposite parties have been acquitted for charges under [STATUTE] . It is well settled that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the Court is not required to reappraise the evidence for coming to a different conclusion than that of the learned trial court. This Court further finds that the occurrence in question had taken place on 13.8.1995 and since then more than seventeen years have elapsed. In the aforesaid factual background, this Court is not inclined to exercise its revisional jurisdiction for setting aside the impugned judgment, so far it has acquitted the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 7 for charges under [STATUTE] . The application stands dismissed. Kanth/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 148

Statute Text:
Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Rioting armed with deadly Weapon. Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.