Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Govt. Appeal (DB) No.4 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. The State Of Bihar .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. Chandan Kumar Yadav S/O Late Ramnarain Yadav R/O Gangjala, A.N.Pathak, Lane, Saharsa, P.S.Saharsa, Distt-Saharsa 2. Kundan Kumar Singh S/O Late Sita Ram Singh R/O Panchwati Chowk Gangjala, Saharsa, P.S. & Disttt-Saharsa .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) 3 16-03-2012 This Government Appeal is barred by limitation being delayed for over five months. However, the delay is condoned and the appeal is taken up for admission. The trial court has acquitted the respondents of the charge basically under [STATUTE] . The allegation is that at the instance of respondent no.2, respondent no.1 shot and injured the informant. The trial court found that appellant no.2 was in jail at that time and therefore the informant had alleged that appellant no.2 having suspected that he was in jail because of the informant who had arranged his arrest. This is only a suspicion and there was no evidence to support the Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.4 of 2012 (3) dt.16-03-2012 2 / 3 2 suspicion and the trial court has rightly taken note of this fact and acquitted the person. We find respondent no.1 is said to have shot at the informant along with a person who was concealing his identity. The trial court indicated that respondent no.1 was known to the informant. It is surprising how a person, who is known, was not concealing his identity and the person who is not known was concealing his identity and was never been identified. The investigating officer came to a positive finding that there was no blood-stain or sign of such assault at the place as mentioned by the informant. Informant admits that there was a witness in the house and there were many people. All those persons have given conflicting statements. Defence examined witnesses to show that respondent no.1 along with D.W.2 was running a hotel where the informant wanted to take liquor which was stopped by appellant no.1. This witness was not even cross-examined on this aspect. The trial court , in our view, has rightly relied on these major evidence and discrepancies for acquittal. The doctors who examined the appellant were not brought before the court. The trial court has summed up the reason in paragraph-32. Appellant no.1 has no criminal history and only on suspicion that he has done those at Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.4 of 2012 (3) dt.16-03-2012 3 / 3 3 the behest of appellant no.2, we do not think so that he could be convicted. We have gone through the trial court judgment and we find no reason to interfere. This appeal is dismissed. sudip/- (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J) (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 307

Statute Text:
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Attempt to murder. Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by Life Convicts: When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.