IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.454 of 2008 DINESH PANDEY S/O- LATE BHOLA PANDEY, R/O- VILLAGE DHAPAR, P.S.- RUNNISAIDPUR, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SATAN BAITHA, S/O- LATE YOGI BAITHA 3. SINGASA BAITHA, S/O- JHINGUR BAITHA 4. HARI BAITHA SON OF RAJDEO BAITHA 5. VIJAY BAITHA, SON OF BALAM BAITHA 6. CHANDESHWAR BAITHA, SON OF JHINGUR BAITHA 7. SANJAY BAITHA, SON OF LATE DHARI CHHAN BAITHA NOS. 2 TO 7 ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE DHAPAR, P.S.- RUNNISAIDPUR, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI For the petitioner : Mr. Tejendra Sinha, Advocate For the O.P. : Dr. Amrendra Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 3 15.09.2010 Heard both sides. Present is an application filed by the informant questioning the sustainability of the order passed by learned trial Court. It is contended that based on the materials on record, the accused were liable to be convicted under Section 307 IPC. Acquittal of the charge under Section 307 IPC is erroneous. I have gone though the impugned judgment. Background facts of the case has been dealt with by learned trial Court in paragraph 17. It has also been found that a counter version of the case is pending trial in which some of the accused persons received injuries at the instance of the present prosecution. It appears from paragraph 12 that the petitioner received one head injury caused by sharp cutting weapon. Other injuries have been found to be superficial and simple in nature. Based on the materials on record, a view has been taken that the 2 accuseds are guilty of offence under Section 324 IPC only. Accordingly, they have been acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 307 IPC. There seems to be no patent illegality and/or impropriety in the order meriting interference. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )