IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.429 of 2008 RADHEY RAI S/O LATE DULARI RAI --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ANUJ RAI 3. SHIV KUMAR RAI 4. PARO RAI ( 2 TO 4 ARE SONS OF HARIHAR RAI) 5. BALESHWAR RAI SON OF LATE SHIVDHARI RAI 6. GANGA RAI S/O BALESHWAR RAI -- OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 04 16.09.2010 Heard the parties. Petitioner is the informant and thus igniter of the criminal proceeding which gave rise to Sessions trial no. 1208 of 1997/ (Tr. No. 581 of 2007) of the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge Ist Barh whereby the accuseds (opposite party nos. 2 to 6 herein) were tried and acquitted of the charge(s) punishable under Sections 307 and 427 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. As per prosecution case, the informant while returning from attending the call of nature was surrounded by the accused persons named in the F.I.R. It is alleged that at the orders of co- accused Baleshwar Rai (opposite party no.5 herein) co-accused Ganga Rai (opposite party no. 6 herein) fired from the fire arm causing injury on or around his buttock. It is also the allegation that from the firing resorted to by the accuseds one she buffalo received certain injuries. At the trial prosecution examined 07 witnesses. Petitioner, the informant, is said to have received injury caused by fire arm. The doctor (PW6) examined him of his injuries and found a simple injury on the right thigh of the informant caused by fire arm. 2 Learned trial Court, on a consideration of the materials on record, found that there was deficient material on record so far as the charge under Section 429 of the Penal Code is concerned. Accordingly the accuseds were acquitted of the said charge. Learned trial Court also found that PWs 1 to 4 were only hearsay witnesses who arrived at the place of occurrence after hearing the sound of firing. They claimed to have seen the informant (PW5) in an injured condition fallen on the ground. Learned trial Court, on a conspectus of the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that from the materials emanating from the record it cannot be inferred that there was an intention to kill the injured. Accordingly, they were absolved of the charge(s) punishable under Section 307 of the Penal Code. Trial Court also acquitted the accused persons of the charge(s) punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned judgment submits that even going by the materials on record on which the trial Court has placed reliance acquittal recorded under Section 27 of the Arms Act is patently illegal. He draws attention of the Court to paragraph nos. 7 and 9 of the impugned judgment in order to support his submission. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, submits that there is also findings recorded by learned trial Court that the parties were on litigating terms from before. Several exhibits to this effect had been filed and taken note of by learned trial Court in paragraph no.8 of the impugned judgment. It is also submitted that this Court would exercise its jurisdiction only when it 3 is found that there is patent illegality in the impugned judgment. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. The prosecution case is specific that co-accused Ganga Rai fired caused injury to the informant. The injury report (Ext.1) has been proved by the doctor (PW6). As per the doctor the injury was simple in nature but was caused by fire arm. It appears from the impugned judgment that this part of prosecution case has been accepted by learned trial Court. If that be so then the trial Court ought to have considered whether on the basis of the materials available on record charge(s) punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act was proved or not against all or any one of the accuseds facing the trial. This appears to be an omission on the part of the learned trial Court. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to interfere only with respect to the findings of not guilt recorded by learned trial Court under Section 27 of the Arms Act is concerned. Consequently the matter is remanded back to learned trial Court (Assistant Sessions Judge Ist, Barh) for giving fresh look/consideration to the materials on record and pass a judgment in accordance with law after hearing the parties. It is made clear that other findings recorded by learned trial Court have not been interfered with and/or altered by this Court. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)