IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1351 of 2008 BACHAN SINGH @ BACHAU SINGH PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. NIRMAL YADAV 3. HARBANSH YADAV 4. KAMAL YADAV OPP.PARTIES For the petitioner : Mr.Helal Ahmad & : Mr.Pratap Singh, Advocates For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP ----------- 02. 21.07.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner is the informant (P.W.6) of the case which gave rise to Sessions Trial No.152/2000. By the impugned order, O.P.No.2(Nirmal Yadav) was found and held guilty for having committed the offence punishable under section 325 IPC, whereas O.P. Nos. 3 and 4 were convicted under sections 323 IPC. Aforesaid Nirmal Yadav was acquitted of the charge(s) punishable under sections 504,323 and 307 IPC. It appears from the impugned order that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1998 in the wheat field. The informant and his friend Akhtar Khan (P.W.4) were present there. O. P. No.2 Nirmal Yadav arrived there on a tractor with trolley and made an attempt to plough the field. When protest was made by the petitioner (informant) heated exchanges of abuses ensued. Other co-accuses, being family members of aforesaid Nirmal Yadav armed with Lathi joined him. They assaulted the informant. When P.W.4 tried to intervene he was also assaulted by the accused persons. At the trial seven P.Ws. have been examined to prove - 2 - charge(s). P.Ws.5 and 4 are said to have received one grievous injury each. Learned trial court on appraisal of the evidence on record, has found certain contradictions in the deposition and the injuries sustained by P.Ws. including the informant. It has also taken note of the fact that the place of occurrence is wheat field and that on the spur of the moment the occurrence had taken place. Having regard to all these aspects of the matter, it has been found and held that accused Nirmal Yadav had no intention to kill P.W.4 (Akhtar Khan). It has also taken into consideration that as per the allegation, P.W.4 was assaulted by means of ‘Pulli’, whereas the doctor in his deposition has admitted that injury found by him could not have been caused by ‘Pulli.’ Having regard to these aspect of the matters, it has been found that charge under section 307 IPC has not been proved beyond reasonable doubts. Similarly, the evidence was appraised with regard to the charge punishable under section 504 IPC and it was found that same was grossly insufficient as a result whereof they were acquitted of the said charge. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and going through the impugned judgment, this Court is satisfied that order impugned cannot be said to be perverse and/or perfunctory meriting any interference by this Court. The application is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )