Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.362 of 2009 ====================================================== Phool Devi W/o Depu Sah, R/o village- Balaha, P.S.- Rajnagar, District- Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Santosh Sah S/o Ram Prasad Sah 3. Ram Prasad Sah S/o Anand Sah, both R/o village- Balaha, P.S. Rajnagar, District- Madhubani .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ratnakar Jha, Advocate For the State of Bihar : M/s. Dr. Indiwar Kumari, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 05-10-2012 Heard. The petitioner, being the informant of the criminal case, has assailed the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 6th January, 2009 passed in Sessions Trial No. 544 of 2007 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-1, Madhubani, whereby the accused-opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted for charges under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution during the course of trial has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court, and, therefore it has come to a wrong conclusion for acquitting the accused-opposite party nos. 2 and 3. According to the learned counsel, if the evidence/materials available on record is properly reappraised and considered, then there are materials to Patna High Court CR. REV. No.362 of 2009 (3) dt.05-10-2012 2/2 record a judgment of conviction against the accused-opposite party nos. 2 and 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made in the present application and has supported the impugned judgment. After having heard the parties, this Court finds that the learned trial court has meticulously scrutinised the evidence/materials available on records and, thereafter, has recorded a finding of fact that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-opposite party nos. 2 and 3 beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts. It is well settled that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, the Court should normally refrain from reappraising the materials/evidence on record for coming to a different conclusion than that of the learned trial court. 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. RPS/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 511

Statute Text:
Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. Attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment, and in such attempt doing any act towards the commission of the offence. Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.