IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.423 of 2008 1. GANGA PRASAD YADAV S/O RAM DEO YADAV 2. PAWAN DEVI W/O VISHUNDEO YADAV --- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ARUN YADAV 3. RAJ KUMR YADAV 4. SURESH YADAV ( 2 TO 4 ARE SONS OF PARILAL YADAV 5. PARI LAL YADAV S/O HIRA YADAV -- OPP .PARTIES. ----------- 04 06.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, opposite parties and the State. Petitioners are the informant (PW4) as well as one of the injureds (PW5). They have joined hands in questioning the sustainability of the judgment and order dated 20th February 2008 passed in Sessions Trial no. 80 of 1999( State through Ganga Yadav vs. Arun Yadav & Ors.) whereby on a consideration of the evidence brought on record including that of the doctor (PW6), learned trial has found that the charge(s) punishable under Sections 307/34 of the Penal Code have not been proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubts against the accused persons put on trial ( opposite party nos. 2 to 5). It is seen from the judgment that based on materials on record they have been held guilty under Section 323 of the Penal Code. Learned trial Court on an appraisal of the evidence on record found as under:- “….The contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses indicates that a case of assault in which simple injury was caused has been developed and tried to be converted in a serious offence. The witnesses have tried to develop the case which has itself damaged the prosecution story. Apparently there is land dispute and the land of the accused and the injured Pavn Devi are situated adjacent to each other. The claim of the informant and the injured Pavan Devi that they were admitted in the hospital at Parri gajapatti situated in Samastipur district has been contradicted by the doctor of the hospital who has been examined as P.W.6 and who has categorically stated that the injured were not admitted in the hospital for treatment and there was no lady doctor available in that hospital. The claim of the I.O. that he had came to know from the witnesses that the injured were being treated at Parri gajpatti hospital in Samastipur is falsified by Ext.1 and 1/1 itself which are the police requisition for treatment of the injured which has been sent P.H.C. Parri gajpatti Samastipur and it shows that the police itself had sent to the injured to Parri Gajpatti hospital for treatment. Hence the claim that there was no doctor available at Garhpura hospital in Begusari is itself falsified. The injured did not suffer any serious injury as is evident from the report of the doctor as according to him the injuries were simple in nature. Hence from the evidence adduced and the discussions made above it is crystal clear that no offence u/s 307 IPC is made out against the accused persons….” Seen thus, this Court does not find any patent illegality in the order meriting any interference. The application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)