Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.160 of 2009 ====================================================== Sarita Devi W/o Sri Govind Prasad Mandal, R/o village- Chak Bhuska, P.S.- Kahalgaon, District- Bhagalpur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Shankar Sharma S/o Badri Sharma 3. Arjun Sharma S/o late Tarai Sharma 4. Ajay Sharma S/o Arjun Sharma 5. Chandan Sharma S/o Arjun Sharma, all R/o village- Chak Bhuska, P.S.- Kahalgaon, District- Bhagalpur .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manohar Prasad Singh, Advocate For the O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 : Mr. Dhirendra Nath, Jha, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr. Ram Chandra Jha, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 4 26-09-2012 After having heard the parties, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or procedural irregularity in the impugned judgment and order dated 21st November, 2008 passed in G.R. Case No. 499 of 2001/ T.R. No. 936 of 2008 by the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, whereby accused- opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 5 have been acquitted for all the charges under [STATUTE] ., and further accused-opposite party no. 4, Ajay Sharma, has been convicted only for the charge under [STATUTE] . and has been acquitted for other charges. The accused opposite party no. 4 for his conviction under [STATUTE] . has not been sentenced to prison, rather he has been released on due admonition in terms Patna High Court CR. REV. No.160 of 2009 (4) dt.26-09-2012 2/2 of section 3 of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and order primarily on the ground that the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and therefore, it has come to a wrong conclusion. According to him, if the evidence available on the record is reappraised by this Court, then there are materials available on the record for recording a judgment of conviction against the accused- opposite parties for all the charges. It is well settled that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, the Court should refrain from reappraising the evidence for coming to a different conclusion than that of the learned trial court. No other legal infirmity or procedural irregularity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial court. No case for interference is made out. The application stands dismissed. RPS/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 504

Statute Text:
Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Insult intended to provoke breach of the peace. Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.