1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (DB) No.443 of 2011 ARVIND KUMAR KAUSIK SON OF RAM PADARATH PADNEY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BELAW,POLICE STATION BARBIGHA, DISTRICT SHEIKHPURA ------ APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ANUJ PANDY SON OF VIRMANI PANDEY 3. VINOD PANDEY SON OF MAHESHWAR PANDEY 4. CHHOTELAL PRASAD SON OF SHIVCHARAN MAHTO 5. VIRMANI PANDEY SON OF MAHESHWAR PANDEY 6. MAHESHWAR PANDEY SON OF LATE SURDEV PANDEY 7. AKHELESHWAR PRASAD @ AKO PANDEY SON OF SHIVCHARAN MAHTO, ALL RESIDENT OF BELAW, POLICE STATION BARBIGHA, DISTRICT SHEIKHPURA ----- RESPONDENTS 02/ 10.05.2011 Heard Mrs. Asha Kumari, learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 6th April, 2011 passed by Sri L.L.Srivastava, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court NMo. V, Sheikhpura in Sessions Trial No. 392 of 2010/14 of 2001 whereby accused-respondent nos. 2 to 7 were acquitted of the charges under Sections 307 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act but were convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and have been released under the provision of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act after due admonition. The grievance of the appellant is that on the basis of the evidences available, 2 2 the accused-respondents must have been convicted under Sections 307 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Heard the submissions and perused the judgment under appeal. In this case, doctor has not been examined. So the trial court after considering the evidences came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court found the accused persons guilty for offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and hence convicted them thereunder. We find no illegality or impropriety in the judgment impugned. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed in limine. Tahir/- ( Shyam Kishore Sharma, J. ) ( Gopal Prasad, J.) 3 3