Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1185 of 2009 ====================================================== Keshri Sharma S/o late Satyanarayan Singh, R/o village- Mokimpur, P.S.- Hulasganj, District- Jehanabad ( son of the informant) .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Umesh Singh S/o of Bhagwat Singh 3. Janesh Singh @ Ganesh Singh S/o Bhagwat Singh 4. Ram Gati Singh S/o late Ram Charitar Singh 5. Vijay Singh S/o late Ram Bilas Singh 6. Kopendra Sharma S/o late Kameshwar Singh, all R/o village- Mokimpur, P.S. – Hulasganj, District- Jehanabad (Accused Opp. Party) .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uma Kant Prasad, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr. Styendra Narayan Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 30-11-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. By the impugned judgment and order dated 4th July, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Jehanabad in Sessions Trial No. 274 of 1996/ 14 of 2004 accused opposite party nos. 2 to 6 have been acquitted of the charges under [STATUTE] . as also under section 27 of the Arms Act with respect to an occurrence of dacoity alleged to have been committed on 18.3.1992. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the petitioner, being the informant, on one side and the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1185 of 2009 (3) dt.30-11-2012 2/3 accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 6 on the other side are co- villagers and both the sides were on litigating terms from before. A Title suit was also pending between the parties. According to the learned counsel because of the previous enmity, accused persons committed the crime in question, but the learned trial court, without appreciating the evidence/materials available on record in its proper prospective, has acquitted the accused persons by giving them benefits of doubts. It is next contended that if the evidence/materials available on record are re-appreciated/ re- appraised, then there are materials, which may result in conviction of the accused-opposite parties. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer and has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal. It is well settled that while exercising powers of revision the High Court should normally refrain from reappraising the materials/evidence available on record for coming to a different conclusion than that of the learned trial court. Admittedly, both the sides are co-villagers, and they were on inimical terms from before. A Title Suit was also pending between the parties. In that view of the matter, probability of false implication of the accused persons cannot be ruled out. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1185 of 2009 (3) dt.30-11-2012 3/3 not inclined to exercise its revisional jurisdiction for setting aside and reversing the impugned judgment of acquittal In the result, the application has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. RPS/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 395

Statute Text:
Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Dacoity. Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.