IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1481 of 2007 MATHURA SINGH ……………..Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BHAGWATI SINGH 3. SIDHI SINGH 4. SURYA KUMAR SINGH @ SURADEO SINGH 5. BACHCHAN SINGH 6. ANIL KUMAR SINGH ………….Opposite parties ----------- 2. 7.11.2008. This Cr. Revision has been filed against the judgment dated 21.8.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Aurangabad in Sessions Trial No. 363 of 1990/313 of 2002 thereby the opposite parties have been convicted under Sections 323 and 148 of the IPC and have been given benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. The lower court by the same judgment has acquitted the opposite parties from the charge framed under Section 307 I.P.C. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the court below has wrongly acquitted the opposite parties under section 307 IPC and released the opposite parties under the Probation of Offenders Act. There are sufficient materials to convict opposite parties under Section 307 I.P.C. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment. On perusal of impugned judgment it appears that the doctor has not been examined and the injury report has also not - 2 - been brought on record. Other cogent reasons have also been given for not convicting the opposite parties under Section 307 I.P.C. Under the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, this Cr. Revision is rejected at the admission stage itself. kanchan (Ghanshyam Prasad, J.)