IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.84 of 2008 MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA …Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Pintu Choudhary 3. Pappu Chaudhary 4. Rupesh Choudahry …opposite parties ----------- 03. 26.08.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Informant (P.W.7) is the igniter of the present criminal proceeding which gave rise to Sessions Trial No.173/2001. Accuseds (o.p. nos. 2 to 4) were charged under diverse sections including section 307/34 IPC (later converted into 302/34 IPC). The allegation is that on trivial issue there was exchange of hot words between the parties whereafter Rupesh Choudahry (o.p.no.4) is stated to have assaulted on one Chandeshwar Sharma. Further allegation is that the accused persons thereafter assaulted Kisan Sharma (P.W.2) on different parts of his body including forehead. It is an admitted case that the injured (Chandeshwar Sharma) was first carried to referral hospital Barari, then to Purnea and thereafter Siliguri where in course of treatment, he succumbed to his injuries. Unfortunately, the prosecution has not examined the doctor. Learned trial court has found and held that prosecution has been able to prove the charge punishable under section 304, part II IPC. It is the admitted position that the doctor was not examined in this case. Learned trial court has also found that the prosecution failed to 2 establish and prove the injury report granted by the Medical Officer regarding the death of the deceased at Siliguri. The document on record suggested that the injured(s) was referred to Purnea for treatment, but he was carried to Siliguri. Considering the trivial nature of the case and the allegation coupled with the fact that the doctor could not be produced as also the fact that how the injured was carried to Siliguri, has not been explained by the prosecution, learned trial court held that on the strength of materials on record conviction under section 304, part II IPC was only sustainable. Accordingly, the accuseds (o.p. nos.2 to 4 herein) were convicted under section 304, part II IPC. There is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )