IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (SJ) No.852 of 2010 KOUSHLENDRA SHARMA son of Anandi Singh, resident of Village-vira(Bira) P.S. _ Hulashganj, Dist-jehanaband. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Ramata Singh son of late Ramji Singh. 3. Nihar Nandan Sharma son of Ramta singh. 4. Jainanadan sharma son of Ramta singh. 5. Niranjan Sharma son of Ramta singh All are resident of Vira P.S, Hulashganj, dist-Jehanabad. ----------- 4 22.11.2010 This appeal against acquittal was heard at the stage of admission. The petitioner Koushlendra sharma, who happens to be one of the injured in the occurrence has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 28.6.2010 of the Additional Sessions Judge II Jehanabad, passed in Sessions Trail no. 145 of 2009/191 of 2008 whereunder the Opposite Nos. 2 to 5 were tried for the offence under Sections 323, 325 and 308 IPC but on conclusion of the trial learned trial Court has acquitted the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5 of the charge under Sections 308 & 325 of the IPC but they have been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and are on bail. The learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute the acquittal under Section 308 IPC but he is aggrieved, so far the 2 acquittal under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. The learned trial Court has discussed in the judgment that the victim/petitioner Kaushlendra Sharma is said to have received fracture injury in the left arm, in course of assault at the hands of the Opposite Parties Nos. 2 to 5 during the occurrence. Learned trial Court considered that in the initial written report lodged before police the allegation relating to the charge under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code was that Opposite Party had given blow to Anandi Sharma causing fracture injury and that therefore, the charge under Section 325 was framed with respect to causing grievous injury to Anandi Sharma. Learned trial Court considered that in the written report there was no allegation of causing any grievous injury to petitioner Kaushlendra Sharma, therefore, there was no charge under Section 325 in that context. In such view, of the matters the learned trial Court considered that since the vary allegation of causing grievous injury to petitioner Kaushlendra Sharma was not in the 3 initial written report there was no charge in this respect also and the evidence also being not clinching in this behalf, the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5 were acquitted of the charge under section 325 of the IPC. In view of the discussions as made by the learned trial Court, I find no perversity or illegality in the order of the learned trial Court with regard to the acquittal of the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5 of the charge under Section 325 of the IPC. Thus there is no merit in this appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed. Prakash (C.M.Prasad, J.)