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: 323

Statute Text:
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.