Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.632 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Md. Nakimuddin S/O Sheikh Liyakat Resident Of Village- Khulni, P.S- Shakund,District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Md. Parvej S/O Sheikh Haneef Resident Of Village- Khulni, P.S- Shakund, District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) 2 09-07-2012 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State. The appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 10.04.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No.727 of 2008 whereby the learned trial court acquitted the sole accused-opposite party no.2 from the charge under [STATUTE] . The Trial Court has discussed the reasons of acquittal of the accused person because there were contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. The other inconsistencies have also been noted by the trial court in the impugned judgment. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and it has been submitted that eye witnesses Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.632 of 2012 (2) dt.09-07-2012 2 have supported the prosecution case, but the accused has been acquitted though there were sufficient evidence on the record. The trial court has considered the defence and the reason for acquittal has been given. The trial court has discussed the evidence of I.O., who has stated that the house was having a boundary of 12 feets wall and he has further stated that before the institution of the present case, a Sanha was lodged by the father of the accused to the effect that the informant and his family are trying to get the son married to Yasmin. All the circumstances appearing on the record were considered and the court has found that offence was not made. Considering the judgment of the trial court, there appears no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. This appeal is without merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. V.K. Pandey/- (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J) (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 511

Statute Text:
Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. Attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment, and in such attempt doing any act towards the commission of the offence. Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.