Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.160 of 2008 With Interlocutory Application No. 333 of 2008 ====================================================== Satendra Yadav @ Satendra Kumar Rai, son of Sri Bhimsen Yadav, resident of village Bhopatpur, P.S. Koilwar, District Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Ram Ayodhaya Sah son of Dina nath Sah (deleted vide order dated 22.01.2009) 3. Sheo Kumar Yadav son of Mahanand Yadav All resident of village-Bhopatpur, P.S. Koilwar, District Bhoupur. .... .... Opp. Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suraj Bansh Roy, Adv. For the State : Mr. Umanath Mishra, APP For the Opposite Party No.3 : Mr. Pramod Mishra, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 6 23-08-2012 Interlocutory Application No.333 of 2008 For the reasons disclosed in this interlocutory application, the delay occurred in filing the main revision application is hereby condoned. The interlocutory application stands disposed of. Criminal Revision No.160 of 2008 After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.3 only, since O.P. No.2 is now dead and his name has been deleted, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or procedural irregularity in the impugned judgment dated 8th March 2006 passed in Sessions Trial no. 257 of 2001 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. IV, Bhojpur, Ara acquitting accused opposite party for charges under Patna High Court CR. REV. No.160 of 2008 (6) dt.23-08-2012 2/2 [STATUTE] . In the present case occurrence is said to have taken place on 20.08.1999. After cognizance being taken, case was committed to the court of Sessions in the year 2001. Even charge was framed on 15.10.2001. Though the matter remained pending for five long years before the learned trial court, yet not even a single witness was produced on behalf of the prosecution. The petitioner has brought the entire order sheet of the trial court on record as Annexure-1. From perusal of the order sheet it appears that the summonses were issued to the witnesses and the same were validly served upon them. A non-bailable warrant of arrest was also issued against the witnesses, yet the attendance of the witnesses could not be secured. Consequently, the prosecution case was closed on 06.03.2006, statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and finally by the impugned judgment the accused persons were acquitted. In the given facts of the case, this Court does not find any good and cogent reason for exercising its revisional powers for setting aside and reversing the impugned judgment of acquittal. Consequently, the application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. BTiwary/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 307

Statute Text:
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Attempt to murder. Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by Life Convicts: When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.