a HIGH COURT OF CHHATtISQAKH. AT BILASPUR /ffPLICANTS Resoondents: Oc. M.P. No. 491/2009 1. Narayaa. Raia Yadav, son of Bodram Yadav, aged about 27 years, caste Mahkool. 2. Raiwati Bai, wife of La.tc Ishwar Mahkool, aged about 35 years. Bofh resident of Grain F'remnagar, Bataikela, Talisfl Bagicha, District Jashpur, C.G. Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Chatio Ram., son of Punarain, stged about 35 years, caste Molikool, reaidence of viUage Bataikela, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur, C.G. Sundar Sai, son of Ghurturam., aged about 30 years, caste nagesia, residence of vUlage Bataikela, TAsU Bagicha, District Jashpur, C.G. Shaakarram, son of Ohurturam, aged about 45 years, caste nagesia, residence of village Bataikela, Tahsil Bagfcha, District Jashpur, C.G. Gajadhar Ram, son of Gatiram, aged about 46 years, caste Chik, residence of village Bataikela, Tahsil Bagicha, District J^hpur, C.G. State of Chhattisgarh, tlrrough District Magistrate Jashpur, Nagar, District Jashpur, C.G. MBMO. OF PBTITION UNDBR SBCTION 4ai CRIMINAL PROCEDURB CODB. (8B ,:Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present: Shri C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate with Shri J.K. Saxena, Advocate For the petitioners. Shri Qamarul Aziz, P.L. for the State/respondent N0. 5. ORAL- ORDBR (Passed on II/12/2009) 1. ThM petition iinder Section 482 of the Code of Crunmal Procedure, 1973 (ia short 'Uie Code') for qushmeut of the order dated 3/8/09 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jashpur Nagar in criminal revision No. 1/2009 afGrmmg the judgment of acquittal dated 28/11/2008 passed by fhe Judicial Ms^istrate Pirst Class, Bagicha in crinunal case N0. 155/08 where by learued Judicial Magistrate First Class Bagicha has ^a 1 ihs a^i^ ;^s!^fc .1 i;& "<«§g i> »s '•».. 'p^^y ':l')'i—»<!"!s' @ acquitted ftte respondente N0, 1 to 4 of thc offence pimishable under Sections 323 of the Indian Penal Code on the gix>uad fhat unftected between ocular aud laedical evidence by giving fhe benefit of the doubt to the respondents N0. 1 to 4. 2. Learaed counsel for the petitioners and learued Couasel for the State/respondent No. 5 are heard. 3. Order impugned and judgment ofcourt below perused. 4. Learaed counsel for the petitioners aiyied fhat respondents No. 1 to 4 have used the axe aad stick and caused iujury to the petitioners and complainant aad even blood was came out although doctor has not fouad any iacised wouud, lacerated wound, abrasion but fhe ocular evidence of fhe witnesses are sufficient for convicting fhe respondents No. 1 to 4 for conviction ofthe accused under Section 323 offhe Indian Penal Code even medical evidence is not necessaiy. 5. On the ofher hand, learaed counsel for fhe rcspondent'No. 5/State support the order impugned aud argued that court below has r^htly acquitted the respondeats No. 1 to 4 by giving the benefit of doubt on the ground of conflict between ocular and niedical evidence. 6. Qn perusal, I do not ftad aay UTegularfy or infirmily in the findiag of flie Court below even erroneous finding is not ground for mvokmg extraordiaaiy inherent jurisdiction. ConscquenUy, the petition is liable to be dismissed aad it is hereby dismissed. __. T. P. Sharma Judge ^' i