Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.711 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Md. Zakir Hussain S/O Md. Rafique R/O Pahari Majhauwa, Police Station - Chutarwa, District - West Champaran .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Allaudin Mian S/O Habib Mian R/O Pahari Makhauwa, P.S. - Chautarwa, District - West Champaran 3. Mamun Mian S/O Habib Mian R/O Pahari Makhauwa, P.S. - Chautarwa, District - West Champaran 4. Navi Alam S/O Habib Mian R/O Pahari Makhauwa, P.S. - Chautarwa, District - West Champaran 5. Noor Alam S/O Habib Mian R/O Pahari Makhauwa, P.S. - Chautarwa, District - West Champaran 6. Sadre Alam S/O Habib Mian R/O Pahari Makhauwa, P.S. - Chautarwa, District - West Champaran 7. Kayamuddin Mian S/O Habib Mian R/O Pahari Makhauwa, P.S. - Chautarwa, District - West Champaran 8. Mohammaddin Mian S/O Late Ismayal Mian R/O Pahari Makhauwa, P.S. - Chautarwa, District - West Champaran .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shiv Kumar Dwivedy For the Respondent/s : Mr. APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) --------------- 3 06-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant has challenged judgment dated 06.06.2012 passed by Sri Subodh Kumar Srivastava, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bagaha, West Champaran in Sessions Trial No. 259 of 1998 by which he has acquitted accused persons (respondent nos.2 to 8) of the charges under [STATUTE] . Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.711 of 2012 (3) dt.06-08-2012 2 The accused persons were put on trial and the witnesses were examined. The trial court after analyzing the evidences on record came to the conclusion that the implication of the accused persons was on account of land dispute for which series of litigations up to this Court have been fought. It has also been noted in the judgment that the Investigation Officer has not been examined. The place of occurrence was the land which was under dispute. There were evidences on behalf of the defence also. Exts.A, B series, C, D and E are the documents adduced on behalf the defence. Considering the entire evidences on record, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt. Hence judgment of acquittal was passed. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and analysed the evidences on the record. We find that the judgment is neither perverse nor illegal which requires any interference by this Court. The appeal is without merit and is dismissed. Tahir/- (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J) (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 148

Statute Text:
Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Rioting armed with deadly Weapon. Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.