Case Facts:
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.894 of 2012 (3) dt.18-09-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.894 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Madina Begam W/O Mohamad Mushitikim Resident Of Village- Dalippur, Police Station-Dhangae (Jagdishpur), District-Bhojpur. .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Md. Kalim Son Of Badshah Miya Resident Of Village-Dalippur,P.S.- Dhangae (Jagdishpur), District-Bhojpur. 3. Md. Rahimuddin Son Of Rahmat Miya Resident Of Village- Dalippur,P.S.-Dhangae (Jagdishpur), District -Bhojpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Gopal Govind Mishra, 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) 3 18-09-2012 The appellant has assailed the judgment dated 16.4.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. II, Bhojpur at Ara in Session Trial No. 572 of 2006 (arising out of Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 240 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. No. 2703 of 2000) whereby respondent nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted from the charges framed against them under [STATUTE] and section 27 of the Arms Act. The occurrence is of 9th October, 2000. The FIR was registered and the accused persons were put on trial. In course of trial five witnesses were examined. Only one witness has Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.894 of 2012 (3) dt.18-09-2012 supported the prosecution case. The case was that Mumtaj Mian sustained firearm injury. The doctor was not examined. The Investigating officer was not examined. Even the injury report was not brought on the record and the FIR was also not proved. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order of acquittal was not passed after giving sufficient opportunity to the prosecution to depose and that is why the informant was not examined. Reason for acquittal is noted in paragraph 9 and subsequent paragraphs of the judgment. The Trial Court has found that the prosecution has failed to examine the doctor. Even the formal injury was not brought on the record. The FIR which was the basis of the prosecution case has also remained illusive and in that view of the matter, the trial court found the case doubtful and granted the benefit of doubt to the accused. The judgment has been passed after considering the entire evidences which has come on the record and entire circumstances leading to acquittal of the case has been well considered. The order of acquittal can only be interfered with if it is illegal or perverse. It can also be interfered with if the reasons for acquittal are unfounded and not based on the materials available on the record. There is presumption of innocence in the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.894 of 2012 (3) dt.18-09-2012 Indian Penal Jurisprudence. The Trial court in the present case has given sound reasoning regarding order of acquittal. The reasons for acquittal are well discussed and the judgment needs no interference of this Court. This appeal is held to be of without merit. It is accordingly, dismissed. avin/- (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J) (Amaresh Kumar Lal, 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.