Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1094 of 2010 ====================================================== Ramashankar Bhagat son of Luttan Bhagat, resident of village-Rasavati, P.S. Ketya, District- Gopalganj, presently residing at village- Naru Chakarawa, P.S. Bhorey, Distt.- Gopalganj .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Jawahar Bhagat son of Ramgarib Bhagat 3. Haresh Bhagat son of Bibhuti Bhagat 4. Veyas Bhagat son of Bibhuti Bhagat All residents of village- Naru Chakarawa, P.S. Bhorey, Distt. Gopalganj .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shekhar Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. S.D.Singh Yadav. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 06-08-2012 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner, the informant of the criminal case, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28th April 2010 passed in Sessions Trial No. 90 of 1993/183 of 2009 by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Gopalganj, acquitting the accused Opposite Party no. 2 to 4 for the charge under [STATUTE] , has preferred the present revision application under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 questioning the correctness and legality of the impugned judgment of acquittal. It is the case of the petitioner that an occurrence took place on 11.03.1991 and accordingly a criminal case under [STATUTE] . besides other offences, was instituted for the death of the deceased Jasia Devi. Admittedly, in the FIR lodged by the petitioner, opposite party no. 2 to 4 were not named as accused. On close of investigation charge sheet was submitted only against co-accused Bibhuti Bhagat under [STATUTE] . No charge sheet was submitted against opposite party no. 2 Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1094 of 2010 (2) dt.06-08-2012 2/2 to 4. After cognizance being taken, the case was committed to the court of Session and co-accused Bibhuti Bhagat was put on trial for the charge under [STATUTE] . During the course of trial some of the prosecution witnesses named Opposite party no. 2 to 4 also as accused, therefore, learned trial court in exercise of his powers under Section 319 Cr. P. C., summoned them to face trial. Accordingly, trial proceeded against accused opposite party no. 2 to 4. Although altogether 7 prosecution witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution, but the learned trial court, on appreciation of evidence, has come to a finding that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt against accused opposite party no. 2 to 4 beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts. Accordingly, by giving them benefits of doubts, they have been acquitted by the learned trial court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued the matter at length and has assailed the impugned judgment of acquittal primarily on the ground that the evidence produced by the prosecution has not been properly appreciated. However, he has failed to point out any legal infirmity or procedural irregularity committed by the learned trial court for passing the impugned judgment of acquittal. After having heard the parties and in the given facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal by exercising revisional jurisdiction in a case in which occurrence took place in the year 1991, i.e. about 21 years ago. Consequently, the application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. BTiwary/- (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.