Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1525 of 2007 ====================================================== Md. Anis Alam S/o late Md. Sukhari Mian, R/o village- Minapur Balha, P.S.- Piprahi, District- Sheohar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Md. Mustaque S/o Md. Sattar 3. Chhotan S/o Md. Quifayat 4. Isteyak S/o Md. Quifayat 5. Md. Guddu S/o Md. Sattar, all R/I village- Minapur Belha, P.S. Piprahi, District- Sheohar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jagdish Prasad No.-1, Advocate Mr. Virendra Kumar, Advocate Mr. A.K. Verma, Advocate For the Opp. Party nos. 2 to 5 : Mr. S.N. Yadav, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr. Umanath Mishra, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 6 24-08-2012 After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 to 5, this Court does find any legal infirmity or procedural irregularity resulting in glaring miscarriage of justice in the impugned judgment and order dated 3rd September 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-1, Sheohar at Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 275 of 2004/190 of 2006, acquitting the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 5 for charges under [STATUTE] . It is true that in support of the prosecution case seven Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1525 of 2007 (6) dt.24-08-2012 2/3 witnesses were examined including the Doctor (P.W.5) and the I.O. (P.W.7). But on careful examination of the evidence of all the witnesses, the learned trial court has come to a finding that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case. It has further been recorded as a finding of fact that there are material contradictions in the evidence of witnesses examined in support of the factual aspect of the case. The I.O. (P.W.7) has stated that no blood mark was found on the alleged P.O. It has also been noticed by the learned trial court that both the parties were on inimical term from before, yet the independent witnesses, who have been named in the F.I.R. as eye witnesses, have been deliberately withheld by the prosecution and have not come forward to support the prosecution case during the course of trial. On the basis of these findings, besides others, the learned trial court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts. Consequently, the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 5 have been acquitted by the learned trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the evidence brought on record on behalf of the prosecution has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court, but he has failed to point out any legal infirmity or procedural irregularity Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1525 of 2007 (6) dt.24-08-2012 3/3 committed by the learned trial court for reaching the conclusion and recording the judgment of acquittal. In the given fact of the case, this Court is not inclined to exercise its revisional jurisdiction for setting aside and reversing the impugned judgment of acquittal. In the result, the application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. RPS/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 302

Statute Text:
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.