Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1433 of 2008 ====================================================== Bipin Prasad Shrivastava, son of late Banke Prasad Shrivastava, resident of village Karanpur, Post and Police Station Ekma, District Saran ( Chapra) .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Awadhesh Kishore Pandey, son of late Bal Mukund Pandey 3. Raj Kishore Pandey, son of late Bal Mukund Pandey 4. Upendra Pandey, son of Raj Kishroe Pandey 5. Shailendra Pandey, son of Raj Kishore Pandey 6. Sri Niwas Pandey, son of Raj Kishore pandey 7. Sonu Pandey, son of Nand Kishore Pandey 8. Guddu Pandey, son of Nand Kishore Pandey 9. Raman Pandey, son of Nand Kishore Pandey 10. Devendra Pandey, son of Awadh Kishore Pandey 11. Birendra Pandey, son of Hari Kishore Pandey 12. Harendra Pandey, son of Hari Kishore lPandey 13. Rabindra Pandey, son of Awadh Kishore Pandey, all are residents of village Karanpur, P.O. and P.S. Ekma,District Saran ( Chapra) .... .... Opposite party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Prasad, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr. Ramchandra Singh, Addl.P.P. For Opp. Party Nos. 2 to 13: Mr. Nachiketa Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 14-09-2012 After having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 13, this Court Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1433 of 2008 (3) dt.14-09-2012 2 / 2 2 does not find any legal infirmity or procedural irregularity in the impugned judgment dated 8th September, 2008 passed in Sessions trial No. 803 of 2005 by learned additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Saran, whereby the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 13 have been acquitted for the charges under [STATUTE] as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Admittedly, in the present case out of eight prosecution witnesses examined, three P.Ws have been declared hostile as they have not supported the prosecution case. The Doctor, who examined the injuries of the injured, has not come forward to support the prosecution case during the course of trial. Only family members of the informant have come forward to support the prosecution case. On close scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned trial court has come to a finding that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 13 beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts. Consequently, by giving the benefits of doubts to the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 13 the impugned judgment of acquittal has been passed by 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. Kanth/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 148

Statute Text:
Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Rioting armed with deadly Weapon. Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.