IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA GOVT. APPEAL (DB) No.15 of 2008 STATE OF BIHAR Versus 1. RUPDEO SINGH, 2. RAMJUS SINGH, 3. RAM KISHUN SINGH, 4. CHHOTU SINGH, 5. MINTU SINGH & 6. LALLU SINGH ----------- 6/ 25.09.2008 Heard the counsel appearing for the State. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.8.2007 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Purnea, in Sessions Trial No.537 of 1998, whereby respondent nos. 1 to 6 have been acquitted from the charge under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Counsel for the State while assailing the judgment of acquittal has submitted that P.Ws.2, 3, 4 and 6 have fully supported the case of the prosecution and proved the allegation, in spite of that over-looking their evidence the judgment of acquittal has been passed by the trial court. 4. From perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3, 4 and 6, it transpires that the occurrence took place due to land dispute. So 2 far the charge under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the evidence of PW 1 Dr. Gyanendra Kumar Singh and the injury report of Laban Kujur indicate that there were two injuries; (i) Abrasion on left palm 1” in diameter and (ii) Swelling over left shoulder about 1” in diameter. The nature of the injuries were simple. It is also alleged that the informant also received injury but injury report has not been brought on record. The injuries which were found on the person of PW 4 Laban Kujur did not make out a case under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. We do not find that the judgment of acquittal suffers from any infirmity. 6. Govt. Appeal preferred by the State is, thus, dismissed. JA/- (Mridula Mishra, J.) (Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam, J.)