Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1506 of 2009 ====================================================== Md. Fakruddin sib if kate Abdul Amin, resident of village- Chaurasa, P.S. Chandradeep, District- Jamui. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Baleshwar Ravidas son of late Saudi Ravidas 3. Anil Ravidas son of Baleshwar Ravidas 4. Sunil Ravidas son of Baleshwar Ravidas 5. Anil Ravidas son of Ramdeo Ravidas All are residents of village- Chaurasa, P.S. Chandradeep, District- Jamui. .... .... Opp. Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the State : Mr. Ramchandra Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 4 12-12-2012 Heard. By the impugned judgment and order dated 3rd March 2009 passed in Sessions Trial No. 367 of 2004 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court IIIrd, Jamui, while co-accused Ramdeo Ravidas has been held guilty for charge under [STATUTE] and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years, but at the same time opposite party no.2 to 5 have been acquitted of all the charges under [STATUTE] as also under [STATUTE] by giving them the benefits of doubts. The aforesaid convict Ramdeo Ravidas has also been acquitted of other charges. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while assailing the impugned judgment, so far it has acquitted the accused opposite party no. 2 to 5, submits that prosecution evidence available on record was not properly Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1506 of 2009 (4) dt.12-12-201 2/2 appreciated by the learned trial court and, therefore, if the evidences of P. Ws. are reappraised by this Court, then that may result into the conviction of accused opposite party no. 2 to 5 also for the charges framed against them. However, he has not pointed out any legal infirmity or procedural irregularity committed by the learned trial court, so far the impugned judgment of acquittal has been passed. It is well settled that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the Court should normally refrain from reappraising the evidence of the witnesses for coming to different conclusion than that of the learned trial court. It is also well settled that against judgment of acquittal the revisional court can interfere only on certain exceptional circumstances resulting into grave miscarriage of justice or there has been procedural or jurisdictional error committed by the learned trial court. The present case is not covered within the framework of the law, as indicated above, laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the result, the application has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. BTiwary/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 323

Statute Text:
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.