Case Facts:
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.924 of 2012 (2) dt.24-09-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.924 of 2012 ====================================================== Saheb Samarat son of Umesh Prasad, R/o village- Sonmanki, P.S.- Morkahi, District- Khagaria .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Bharat Prasad, S/o late Satish Chandra Prasad, R/o village- Sonmanki, P.S.- Korkhahi, District- Khagaria .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate 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) 2 24-09-2012 Through the instant appeal the informant-appellant has assailed the judgment dated 21st May, 2012 passed in Sessions Trial No. 184 of 2004 relating to Khagaria (Morkahi) P.S. Case No. 244 of 2003 G.R. No. 723 of 2003 whereby the sole accused respondent no. 2 was acquitted from the charges under [STATUTE] and section 27 of the Arms Act. It appears from the address given in the first page of the memo of appeal that the appellant-informant and the respondent no. 2 are of same village Sonmanki, P.S.- Morkahi, District- Khagaria but the respondent no. 2 has not been named in the First Information Report. During investigation at belated stage the appellant has been named by a chance witness. The occurrence Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.924 of 2012 (2) dt.24-09-2012 is of mid night and no explanation was there as to how the witness identifying the accused has seen him in the night of occurrence. The Trial Court has considered the entire defence, the prosecution case and the evidence of I. O. who has visited the place of occurrence but has not seized the blood. There was no explanation for the informant regarding not naming the respondent no. 2 though he was well known from before. In view of the above facts, we are of the view that this appeal has no merit. The impugned judgment needs no interference of this Court. It is accordingly, dismissed. avin/- (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J) (Amaresh Kumar Lal, 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.