Deo Ram Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.221 of 2018 (5) dt.24-04-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Appeal (DB) No.221 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -21 Year- 2006 Thana -RAGHOPUR District- SUPAUL ====================================================== Deo Ram Yadav son of Llate Chaturi Yadav, resident of village Gaddi P.S. Raghopur Dist. Supaul .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

The State of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mayanand Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) 24-04-2018

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State on the point of admission as well as I.A. no. 668/2018 which has been filed under section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C.

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and sentence order dated 28.8.2017 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge II, Supaul in Sessions trial no. 344/2006 arising out of Raghopur P.S. case no. 21/2006 by which and whereunder the respondents were convicted for the offences punishable under sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they were granted privilege of Probation of

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.221 of 2018 (5) dt.24-04-2018 Offenders Act. However, respondent no.4 was acquitted of the charge framed against him for the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that several injuries including grievous injury were found on the person of the injured and the aforesaid fact was supported by the prosecution witnesses but even then the learned trial court acquitted respondent no.4 of the charge framed against him for the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code but from perusal of the impugned judgment, we find that the learned trial court has passed a well thought and well discussed judgment and there is no scope to interfere into the impugned judgment and sentence order. Accordingly, this appeal along with I.A. no. 668/2018 stand dismissed on admission stage itself.

(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Shahid/- U T