IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.193 of 2008 DINESH DUTT DEWEDI @ DINESH DUBEY S/O LATE RADHA KRISHNA DEWEDI --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SURENDRA CHAUBEY S/O LATE ISHAR CHOUBEY 3. RAVINDRA CHAUBEY S/O LATE ISHAR CHOUBEY -- RESPONDENTS. For the Petitioner : Mr. Mr. B.J. Ojha, Advocate. For the O.P.No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Ranjeet Tiwari, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP ----------- 03 07.09.2010 Heard both sides. Present is an application preferred by the informant/petitioner (PW1) calling in question the judgment and order dated 17.01.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. I, Aurangabad in Sessions trial no. 24 of 2002/89 of 2007 (State vs. Ravindra Chaubey) whereby the accuseds (opposite party nos. 2 and 3) were tried and acquitted of the charge(s) punishable under Sections 307 and 307/34 of the Penal Code. However, learned trial Court found that the prosecution was able to prove the charge(s) punishable under Sections 323 and 341 of the Penal Code. Accordingly a fine of Rs. 1000/- and Rs.500/- for the offences under Section 323 and 341 of the Penal Code respectively were imposed having default clauses(s). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reasonings/findings assigned by learned trial Court for acquitting the accuseds/ opposite party nos. 2 and 3 of the charge punishable under Section 307 of the Penal Code are erroneous. It is stated that the injured/informant (PW1) received as many as 05 injuries. Two of whom were incised injuries found on the right parietal and left occipital region of the informant. It is next contended that learned trial Court has committed an error of record in coming to the conclusion that in a case instituted by the accuseds of the present case against the informant and his son they were only imposed a fine although the Court found them guilty under Section 325 of the Penal Code. It is contended that aforesaid observation has been made with reference to Exhibit-5 which is an order of acquittal recorded in favour of those 02 persons (present informant and his son). It appears from perusal of the order impugned that learned court below, on appraisal of the evidence of the informant (PW1), and doctor (PW4), has come to the conclusion that the injury report (Ext.3) was a got up document as the doctor in his evidence has claimed that the injury report (Ext.3) was issued on 23.01.99 ( date of occurrence) whereas the x-ray plate indicated that the same was done 03 days thereafter. Learned trial Court has also kept in focus that in the F.I.R. the informant had not alleged that he was assaulted by one of the accuseds on head by means of a ‘garasi’. In these backgrounds it has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case under Section 307 of the Penal Code. So far as the imposition of fine under the proven charge is concerned, it appears that the defence had produced a document Exhibit-A indicating therein that on trial in a different case the informant and his son were held guilty under Section 325 of the Penal Code and instead of imposing any sentence they were imposed fine only. That probably weighed with the Court while imposing fine instead of substantive sentence for the proven charge(s) against the accused .No case for interference is made out. The application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)