IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.185 of 2008 NIRMALA SINHA, W/o Sri Sharvan Kumar, R/o Mohalla- Chhoti Sangat, P.S.-Barbigha, District- Sheikhpura. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Girish Singh, S/o Late Lakhan Singh 3. Munna Singh, S/o Girish Singh. Both R/o Mohalla- Chhoti Sangat, P.S.-Barbigha, District- Sheikhpura. For the petitioner : Mr. Ravi Bhushan Prasad, Advocate. For the State : Mr. U.S.P.Singh, A.P.P. ----------- 4. 09-09-2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner who is the informant is aggrieved by judgment dated 4th December, 2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court, Sheikhpura in S.T. No. 55 of 2006 whereby on a consideration of the materials on record, the accuseds (OP Nos. 2 & 3) were acquitted of the charges punishable under sections 307 /34, 452, 341, 323, and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. They were however, found and held guilty of having committed offence (s) punishable under sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned trial court has released them under section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act on due admonition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of the findings recorded by the learned trial court in Para 20, a case under section 452 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Learned trial court erred in not considering the said findings and acquitting the accused persons (OP Nos. 2 and 3) of the charge punishable under section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. It is next contended that in view of the fact that PW-2(husband of the 2 informant) received several injuries some of which were found on the face and head regions, the trial court ought to have convicted the accused persons under sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, on the other hand submits that admittedly as per the prosecution case, both the parties were neighbours and residing side by side. One of them was armed with pistol, yet the husband of the informant was assaulted by the butt of the pistol. He drew attention of the court to Pragraph-18 of the judgment wherein the relevant consideration has been made by the learned trial court for acquitting them of the said charge. It is also submitted that Ext. A brought on record by the defence demonstrate that PW-2 received only two injuries. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. The findings recorded by the trial court, in my view is based on correct appraisal of the materials on record. Those findings whereby the accused persons were acquitted of the charge punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be interfered with. However, this court is satisfied that in the light of the findings recorded at Para 20 of the judgment the matter requires a fresh consideration by the learned trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner also questioned the sustainability of the order of the sentence. This court for the present is not expressing any view on the said aspect of the matter as the matter shall now go on remand to the learned court below 3 for fresh consideration of the case. Consequently I am satisfied that the judgment impugned whereby the Opposite Parties were acquitted of the charge punishable under section 452 of the Indian Penal Code requires a fresh look/consideration by the learned trial court in view of the facts appearing on record particularly at paragraph 20 of the judgment impugned. To that extent the judgment impugned is interfered with and quashed. Sujit (Kishore K.Mandal,J.)