Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.773 of 2010 ====================================================== Ramdeo Yadav S/O Late Raman Yadav R/O Vill.- Bariyahi, P.S.- Barauni, Distt.- Begusarai .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Tarni Yadav S/O Huchhan Yadav R/O Vill.- Bariyahi, P.S.- Barauni, Distt.- Begusarai 3. Dukhan Yadav S/O Late Vishundeo Yadav R/O Vill.- Bariyahi, P.S.- Barauni, Distt.- Begusarai 4. Pankaj Yadav S/O Late Sagar Yadav R/O Vill.- Bariyahi, P.S.- Barauni, Distt.- Begusarai 5. Manoj Yadav R/O Vill.- Bariyahi, P.S.- Barauni, Distt.- Begusarai .... .... Opposite Party/s ================================================ Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Chandra, Advocate For the Opp. Party/s : Mr. Dr. Rabindra Kumar, A.P.P ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 04-07-2012 The petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31st March, 2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. IV, Begusarai, acquitting the accused, opposite party nos. 2 to 5, for the charge under [STATUTE] , has preferred the present revision application under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the correctness and legality of the impugned judgment of acquittal. It appears that the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 were put on trial and were convicted for charge under [STATUTE] . and were, accordingly, sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year by judgment and order dated 25th August, 2008 passed in Complaint Patna High Court CR. REV. No.773 of 2010 (2) dt.04-07-2012 2/2 Case No. 1389 of 1999/T. R. No. 582 of 2008 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai. On appeal, preferred by the opposite party nos. 2 to 5, the learned appellate court, on close scrutiny of evidence and materials available on record, has doubted the prosecution case, has given the benefits of doubts to the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 and has acquitted them of the charge under [STATUTE] . It appears that the occurrence took place on 17.12.1999 and opposite party nos. 2 to 5 had to face the rigors of criminal trial for more than ten years till the judgment of acquittal was passed on 31st March, 2010. Apparently, independent witnesses were not examined by the prosecution party in support of prosecution version. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length, and on examination of the materials available on record, this Court does not find any good ground for interfering with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned lower appellate court. Consequently, the application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. RPS/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 435

Statute Text:
Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code. Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage to an amount of 100 rupees or upwards, or, in case of agricultural produce, 10 rupees or upwards. Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, damage to any property to the amount of one hundred rupees or upwards or (where the property is agricultural produce) ten rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.