Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.906 of 2010 ====================================================== Birendra Singh, son of late Khedu Singh, resident of Village Rajapur, Police Station Kalyanpur, District East Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Ramesh Singh 3. Lakhindra Singh, both sons of Fulgan Singh, resident of Vilalge Nardarwa, Police Station Kalyanpur, District East Champaran .... .... Opposite party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumeet Kumar, Advocate Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Satyendra Pd.Singh, Advocate For the State of Bihar : M/s. Madhuri Lata, Addl.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 17-07-2012 Heard. The petitioner has filed the present revision application, questioning the correctness and legality of the impugned judgment and order dated 20th March, 2010 passed in Sessions Trial No. 522 of 2001, by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari, whereby, the accused opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted for the charges under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued the case and has submitted that though the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.906 of 2010 (2) dt.17-07-2012 2 / 2 2 prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, but the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have fully supported the prosecution case. However, he has fairly conceded that neither the Doctor nor the Investigating Officer has been examined in support of the prosecution case. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at a great length and on consideration of the materials available on the record, as also taking into consideration the fact that the Doctor and the Investigating Officer have not been produced on behalf of the prosecution, this Court does not find it a fit case for interference as the accused opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have been given benefits of doubt and have been acquitted by the learned trial court by a reasoned and speaking order. Consequently, the application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Kanth/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 201

Statute Text:
Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence committed, or giving false information touching it to screen the offender, If a capital offence. Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false; if a capital offence — shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years imprisonment — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.