IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.545 of 2008 MAHANAND YADAV ..PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. HARI KISHAN YADAV 3. DHARMDEO YADAV 4. PREMLAL YADAV 5. SITA RAM YADAV 6. JAI RAM YADAV 7. MAHANTHI YADAV 8. RAJENDRA YADAV 9. SUKHNANDAN YADAV 10. LALIT YADAV 11. BHUPENDRA YADAV 12. SHIV NANDAN YADAV 13. RAM RATAN YADAV …OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioner :Mr.Mr. Arun For o.ps. :Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Verma For the State :Mr.J. Upadhyaya,APP ----------- 04. 21.09.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner is the informant. He is aggrieved by that part of the judgment and order dated 04.03.2008/03.04.2008, passed in S.T.No.83/96(G.R.No.408/93, whereby the accuseds have been acquitted of the charges punishable under section 307 IPC. By previous order, parties were directed to bring on record the injury report of P.W.7 Bishnudeo Yadav as also the deposition of the doctor. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of o.p.no.4. It appears therefrom that the doctor has found one incised wound 1”x ¼”x skin deep above the left ear. Learned trial court has taken a view that all the 13 accused persons were armed with different weapons including Farsa, yet the victim 2 received one injury which was also not found to be grievous in nature in view of the nature of the injury found on his person. In the light of these materials appearing from records a view has been taken that no case under section 307 IPC has been made out. Learned court below found the charge under section 324 IPC, however, stands proved. This Court does not find any patent illegality in such consideration of the matter meriting interference. The application is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )