IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.5375 of 2008
1. SURENDRA NATH JHA
2. GAUTAM NATH JHA
...PETITIONERS
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. BABY DEVI @ CHUNNI DEVI, WIFE OF UPENDRA
JHA.
...OPPOSITE PARTIES
-----------
04. 21.09.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners. Nobody has
appeared on behalf of o.p.n.2 as well as the State.
Petitioners assail the order dated 06.12.2007, passed
by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in S.T.No.651/07,
whereby their application filed under section 228 Cr. P.C.
seeking discharge under section 307 has been considered and
rejected.
Relevant facts necessary for disposal of the case,
may first be indicated. O.P.No.2 (informant) lodged an FIR
alleging therein that on 12.08.2006 at about 8.00 A.M. her
neighbours, namely, the two accused persons came at her
Darwaza and started demolishing her wall which was object to
whereafter they assaulted her by means of Lathi(s) Danda(s)
and bricks causing injuries on her head. The investigation was
taken up whereafter charge-sheet was submitted under diverse
sections including section 307 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are close agnates of the informant and reside side by
side. As per the allegation she was assaulted by means of
Lathi(s) and Danda(s). The injury report (Annexure-3) indicates
2
that she received one injury close to her forehead, i.e., abrasion
½”x ½” in diameter and swelling on left side of forehead. It is
contended that petitioner no.1 who is aged about eighty years
made an application on 14.10.2006 (Annexure-4) before the
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur alleging therein
that the Investigating Officer, in connivance with the informant,
had come to the conclusion that the case u/s 307 was made out.
It is the contention that on the basis of the aforesaid complaint
lodged by him, further investigation/supervision of the case was
carried out whereafter a report dated 13.11.2006 (Annexure-5)
was submitted wherein it was found that injuries were
minor/superficial in nature and on the basis of the materials
brought on record, no case under section 307 IPC has been made
out. It is contended that going by the contents of the FIR, it
would appear that the accuseds at best intended to give a
thrashing to the informant. Admittedly, there was no repetition.
Other injuries found on the person of the victim were one
abrasion ½”x ¼” on left forearm near wrist joint. It is submitted
that had the accuseds intended to kill the informant, at least a
repetition of blow on the vital portion of the body could have
been made. Absolutely, there is no such allegation and the
injury. Looking at the injury report in the light of allegations
made in the FIR, no case under section 307 IPC can be said to
have been made out. This Court finds force in the submission(s)
of learned counsel for the petitioners.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the application is
3
allowed. The trial court shall now proceed to frame charges
under appropriate sections of the Penal Code except section 307
IPC and thereafter remit the case to the court below for trial.
( Kishore K. Mandal )
hr