Case Facts:
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.861 of 2012 (4) dt.24-09-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.861 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Nand Kishore Jha S/O Late Beanand Jha Resident Of Village- Shahpur, P.S.- Sonbersa (Raj), District- Saharsa .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Gudal Yadav S/O Bhola Yadav Resident Of Village- Shahpur, P.S.- Sonbersa (Raj), District- Saharsa 3. Raghuni Yadav S/O Bhola Yadav Resident Of Village- Shahpur, P.S.- Sonbarsa (Raj), District- Saharsa 4. Ramautar Yadav S/O Bhola Yadav Resident Of Village- Shahpur, P.S.- Sonbersa (Raj), District- Saharsa 5. Anirudh Yadav S/O Bhola Yadav Resident Of Village- Shahpur, P.S.- Sonbarsa (Raj), District- Saharsa 6. Kailash Yadav S/O Ramfal Yadav Resident Of Village- Shahpur, P.S.- Sonbarsa (Raj), District- Saharsa 7. Ramfal Yadav S/O Bhola Yadav Resident Of Village- Shahpur, P.S.- Sonbarsa (Raj), District- Saharsa .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Amarnath Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) 4 24-09-2012 This appeal is against the judgment dated 16th July, 2012 passed in Sessions Trial No. 88 of 2000 arising out of Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 40 of 1995 (GR No. 660 of 1995) whereby the respondent nos. 2 to 7 though held guilty under [STATUTE] has been granted benefit of section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The appellant is aggrieved on account of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.861 of 2012 (4) dt.24-09-2012 acquittal of the accused persons under [STATUTE] . The respondent nos. 2 to 7 were charged under [STATUTE] . In course of trial the witnesses were examined. PW 9 the doctor has deposed that though the injury of one of the injured was grievous but it was on foot and it cannot be said that the injury was on vital part of the body. This was taken into account by the Trial Court and found that there were no intervening circumstances so charge under [STATUTE] is not proved. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidences were clear and all the accused persons should have been convicted under [STATUTE] . We have perused the judgment and heard the submissions. The doctor’s evidence is emphatic that though one of the injured was having grievous injury but that was not on vital part of the body rather it was on foot which was not the vital part. The evidences do not disclose the existence of intervening circumstances, so the court has rightly appreciated the evidence and found that the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.861 of 2012 (4) dt.24-09-2012 prosecution has failed to prove charge under [STATUTE] . We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed. avin/- (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J) (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 147

Statute Text:
Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. Rioting. Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.