Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.957 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Yugal Kishore Singh 2. Nagdish Narayan Singh, both are S/o Dwarika Prasad Singh 3. Chandra Mohan Singh S/o Yugal Kishore Singh, all are R/o village- Bhuja, P.S.- Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Anand Mohan Sinha S/o Ramdeo Singh 3. Syuamdeo Singh 4. Ramdeo Singh 5. Surendra Singh, all are S/o late Rajendra Singh 6. Ram Lachan Singh S/o late Shivpujan Singh 7. Vinay Mohan Singh S/o Surendra Singh 8. Brajesh Kumar Singh S/o Surendra Singh, All are R/o village- Bhuja, P.S.- Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj .... .... Opposite Party /s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the O. P. Nos. 2 to 8 : Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr. Z. Hoda, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 6 31-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos.2 to 8. The petitioner no. 1 is the informant of the criminal case registered for offences under [STATUTE] . The petitioner nos. 2 and 3, besides petitioner no. 1, claim to be injured persons in the occurrence in question. The petitioners have assailed the validity and Patna High Court CR. REV. No.957 of 2008 (6) dt.31-08-2012 2/7 correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 30th May 2008 passed in Sessions Case No. 21 of 1995/202 of 1996 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge FTC II, Gopalganj, acquitting accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 8 for the charges under [STATUTE] ., primarily on the ground that without service of summons on the witnesses named in the chargesheet and without recording the evidence of the informant (petitioner no. 1), the prosecution evidence was arbitrarily and abruptly closed by the learned trial court, and accused opposite party nos. 2 to 8 have been acquitted for the aforesaid charges. It has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that petitioner no.1, being the informant of the case, was never examined as witness during the course of trial as summon was never served upon him, but an imposter was set up at the behest of the accused persons showing him to be the informant of the case, in place of actual informant i.e. petitioner no. 1 and on the basis of evidence of the said imposter witness, judgment of acquittal has been passed in favour of the opposite party nos. 2 to 8 by the learned trial court. According to the learned counsel, the procedures prescribed under the law for disposal of a criminal trial have not been properly followed by the learned trial court, and, therefore, for the ends of justice a de novo trial is required in the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.957 of 2008 (6) dt.31-08-2012 3/7 present case, after setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 to 8 has strongly opposed the prayer made in this application and has supported the impugned order of acquittal. It is contended that, as a matter of fact, summons were issued against the witnesses and even warrant of arrest was issued against them, yet only four witnesses turned up for their examination and thereafter, the learned trial court closed the prosecution case and recorded the impugned judgment of acquittal, which is fit to be affirmed by this Court. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 5 disputing the assertions made in the revision application filed on behalf of the petitioners. By order dated 18.10.2011 lower court record was called for by a Bench of this Court, which has been received. After having heard the parties and on examination of the impugned judgment as also materials available on record, this Court finds that petitioner no. 1 had lodged the criminal case for various offences including the offence under [STATUTE] . in the year 1994. In the F.I. R. vide Annexure-1 the opposite party nos. 2 to 8 have been arrayed as accused persons. On close of investigation chargesheet was submitted against the accused Patna High Court CR. REV. No.957 of 2008 (6) dt.31-08-2012 4/7 persons and, accordingly, cognizance was taken against them by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj for various offences including the offence under [STATUTE] . Thereafter, the case was committed to the court of sessions giving rise to Sessions Case No. 21 of 1995/202 of 1996. It further transpires that on the basis of the materials available on record, charge under [STATUTE] was framed against the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 8 by an order dated 6.8.2004. During the course of trial only four witnesses are said to have been examined, out of them P.W.1, Ram Bilash Singh and P.W. 3, Ganesh Singh, have been declared hostile. P.W. 2 is the investigating officer of the case. P.W. 4 is one Yugal Kishore Singh, but there is serious dispute about identity of the aforesaid P.W.4. According to the petitioners, he is not that Yugal Kishroe Singh who lodged the criminal case and is petitioner no. 1 before this Court, rather he is some other person, being imposter, set up by accused persons, whereas according to accused–opposite party nos. 2 to 8, he was the real informant and he had appeared before the learned trial court. It is admitted case of the parties that even P.W. 4 was declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution case. This creates grave doubt the genuineness and identity of Patna High Court CR. REV. No.957 of 2008 (6) dt.31-08-2012 5/7 P.W.4, claiming to the informant of the criminal case. Appar

Applicable IPC Section: 323

Statute Text:
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.