Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1031 of 2012 ====================================================== Bijendra Rishi, Son of Ramjee Rishi, Resident of Village – Simariya, P.S. – Kasba, District – Purnea. .... .... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Rajendra Yadav, Son of Late Kailash Yadav 3. Pradeep Yadav, Son of Late Kailash Yadav 4. Dilip Yadav, Son of Bulaki Yadav 5. Indrasan @ Indranand Biswas, Son of Late Narayan Biswas 6. Md. Ajiuddin, Son of Late Rashid 7. Jagdish Prasad Singh, Son of Siya Saran Lal Singh 8. Baleshwra Mahto, Son of Jharu Mahto 9. Mahajni Devi, Wife of Rajendra Yadav 10. Anju Devi, Wife of Pradeep Yadav Respondent Nos. 2 to 10 are resident of Village – Simariya, P.S. – Kasba, District – Purnea. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : 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) 4 22-11-2012 Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and for the State. The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 23rd November, 2011 whereby the accused persons Rajendra Yadav, Pradeep Yadav, Dilip Yadav, Indrasan @ Indranand Biswas, Md. Ajiuddin, Jagdish Prasad Singh, Baleshwar Mahto, Mahajni Devi and Anju Devi were acquitted from the charges under [STATUTE] . Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1031 of 2012 (4) dt.22-11-2012 2 Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial court has erred in disbelieving the injury report which is in terms of allegation as well as the fact of a delay which has caused prejudiced to the prosecution case. Heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment. It appears from the discussion that there was no dragging mark or no blood was found therefore, the place of occurrence itself has come under cloud. The manner of allegation has not been corroborated by the medical evidence. These were the grounds which created doubt in the mind of the trial court. The judgment of acquittal can only be interfered with if it is found perverse or beyond record. The judgment under appeal does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The substantial justice has been done. In that view of the matter the judgment requires no interference. In the result, this appeal is without merit and it is accordingly dismissed. KKSINHA/- (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) (Amaresh Kumar Lal, 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.