Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.719 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Anandi Kuar W/O Late Bigan Singh R/O Village - Dawada Rampur, P.S. Kuchaikote, District - Gopalganj .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Nandi Singh S/O Paspat Singh R/O Village - Dauda Rampur, P.S. Kuchaikot, District - Gopalganj 3. Mukesh Kumar Singh S/O Nandji Singh R/O Village - Dauda Rampur, P.S. Kuchaikot, District - Gopalganj .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 03-09-2012 The present appeal has been filed under section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the appellant against the judgment dated 28th April, 2012 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-IV, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No.58 of 2008/119 of 2009 by which the trial court has held that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge against respondent nos. 2 and 3 under [STATUTE] . However, the trial court has convicted the respondent nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under [STATUTE] . I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and by his assistance perused the judgment passed by the trial court. The trial court on appreciation of the evidence has found that the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.719 of 2012 (2) dt.03-09-2012 2 witnesses have deposed differently while being examined in court so far as manner of occurrence is concerned. They are not consistent with their earlier statement made before the police. They have contradicted each other in material particulars. The investigating officer of the case has not been examined. Considering all these facts the trial court has recorded clear, cogent and convincing reason in recording the acquittal of respondent nos.2 and 3 for the charge under [STATUTE] . The findings of the trial court are neither erroneous nor perverse. Mere fact that a view, other than one taken by the trial court, can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate court on reappraisal of the evidence, cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with the order of acquittal unless the entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or conclusion arrived at by it were wholly untenable. I find no merit in the present appeal. It is dismissed, accordingly. Md.S./- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 325

Statute Text:
Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.