Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1019 of 2007 ====================================================== Birendra Rai, son of Maina Rai, resident of village- Puhapi, Police Station- Dinara, District Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Surendra Rai, son of Mahesh Rai, resident of village- Puhapi. 3. Mahendra Rai @ Mahendra Yadav, S/O Bhola Yadav,, resident of village- Kamauhra. 4. Raj Bali Singh @ Raj Bali Yadav, son of Rakatu Yadav, resident of village- Chatar Tola. No. 2 to 4, all of P.S. Dinara, District- Rohtas. .... .... Opp. Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.P. Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, APP For the O.P.No. 2 to 4 : Mr.Rajendra Narain, Sr. Adv., with Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 8 14-08-2012 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 to 4. 2. The petitioner, the informant of the criminal case, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 9th May 2007 passed in Session Trial No. 207 of 1980/ Trial No. 71 of 2001 by the learned P.O. Additional Court (Fast Track Court) No.1, Rohtas at Sasaram, acquitting the accused opposite party no. 2 to 4 for charges under [STATUTE] as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act, has preferred the present revision application under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 questioning the correctness and legality of the impugned judgment of acquittal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with respect to an occurrence dated 23.03.1980 accused opposite Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1019 of 2007 (8) dt.14-08-2012 2/3 party no. 2 to 4 were put on trial. In support of prosecution case altogether 8 prosecution witnesses were examined and out of them, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 are eye witnesses. It is submitted that in view of the fact that witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case, therefore, even in absence of examination of Investigating Officer, the learned trial court ought to have convicted the accused opposite parties for the charges in question. It is contended that due to passage of long time, since some how or the other the accused opposite parties succeeded in delaying the disposal of the criminal trial, Investigating Officer could not be produced during the course of trial. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused opposite party no. 2 to 4 has opposed the prayer and has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal. It is submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 1980 and the criminal trial against the accused persons remained pending for almost 27 years. The accused persons had to face the rigors of criminal trial for a long 27 years. It is next submitted that despite commitment of the case in the year 1980 and despite framing of charge against the accused persons the trial remained pending before the learned trial court for quite a long time, yet neither the Investigating Officer nor the independent witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution. Therefore, in his submission, the impugned judgment of acquittal is fit to be affirmed by this Court. 5. After having heard the parties and on examination of the impugned judgment as also the materials available on record, this Court finds that though P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 claim to be eye witnesses of actual occurrence, yet the learned trial court has recorded a finding of fact that the prosecution has Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1019 of 2007 (8) dt.14-08-2012 3/3 failed to prove the manner of assault as also the place of occurrence. Learned trial court has also recorded a finding of fact that the evidence of aforesaid three eye witnesses is contradictory to each other, and the independent witnesses were not produced on behalf of the prosecution to bring home the charge against the accused persons. Further it has been noticed that both parties were on inimical terms from before. On the basis of these findings, the learned trial court has extended the benefits of doubts to the accused persons and has acquitted them for all the charges. 6. In the aforesaid factual background and particularly in view of the fact that almost 32 years have elapsed since the date of occurrence, it would not be in the interest of justice to exercise revisional powers for setting aside and reversing the impugned judgment of acquittal. 7. 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.