Ashok Hazari and ors Vs. State of Jharkhand - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi cr. revision no. 223 o”1. ashok hazari 2. haldhar hazari 3. dilip hazari 4. nand kishore hazari 5. bharat hazari 6. madan mahto 7. sujan mahto 8. falguni mahto 9. manoj mahto 10. bikash mahto ... petitioners versus the state of jharkhand ... opposite party -------- coram : honble mr. justice h. c. mishra ------ for the petitioners : mr.pramod kr.jha, advocate. for the state : a.p.p. ------ 2/ 14.06.2013 heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the state. the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 16.2.2013 passed by the learned 2nd additional district judge, deoghar, in s.c. no. 04 of 2012, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners for discharge, has been rejected by the court below. the petitioners have been made accused in sarwan p.s case no. 38 of 2010 for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 379, 337/ 34 of the indian penal code and there is allegation against the petitioners nos. 1 to 5 to have assaulted the informant. the other petitioners are not named in the fir. it appears that after investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against all the petitioners and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of session, where the petitioners filed their application for discharge, which was rejected by the court below. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the injury on the informant was only simple in nature and accordingly, no offence can be said to be made out under section 307 of the indian penal code. learned counsel has taken an alternative plea that the petitioner nos. 6 to 10 have not been named in the fir and even in his statement recorded before the police, the informant has not named these petitioners, they have only been named by some witness and accordingly, no offence can be said to be made out against these petitioners. learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. so far as the allegation of assault is concerned, there is direct allegation in the fir that the informant was assaulted on his head with an intention to cause his death. the impugned order also shows that there was head injury on the informant. in that view of the matter, it cannot be said at this stage that the offence under section 307 of the i.p.c is not at all made out in the facts of the case. i do not find any -2- illegality and / or irregularity in the impugned order, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. there is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed. so far as the alternative submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to petitioners nos. 6 to 10 is concerned, the same appears to have been taken for the first time in this court. the impugned order shows that there was no such submission in the court below and accordingly, the alternative submission on behalf of the petitioners nos.6 to 10 also cannot be entertained at this stage. however, the petitioner nos. 6 to 10 are given liberty to file their applications afresh on the said ground, and in case any such application is filed by them in the court below, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law, on the basis of materials collected against them during the investigation of the case. with these observations, this application stands dismissed. ( h. c. mishra, j.) bs/

Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 223 o”

1. Ashok Hazari 2. Haldhar Hazari 3. Dilip Hazari 4. Nand Kishore Hazari 5. Bharat Hazari 6. Madan Mahto 7. Sujan Mahto 8. Falguni Mahto 9. Manoj Mahto 10. Bikash Mahto ... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioners : Mr.Pramod Kr.Jha, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. ------ 2/ 14.06.2013 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 16.2.2013 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Deoghar, in S.C. No. 04 of 2012, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners for discharge, has been rejected by the Court below. The petitioners have been made accused in Sarwan P.S Case No. 38 of 2010 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 379, 337/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and there is allegation against the petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 to have assaulted the informant. The other petitioners are not named in the FIR. It appears that after investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against all the petitioners and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Session, where the petitioners filed their application for discharge, which was rejected by the Court below. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the injury on the informant was only simple in nature and accordingly, no offence can be said to be made out under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel has taken an alternative plea that the petitioner Nos. 6 to 10 have not been named in the FIR and even in his statement recorded before the police, the informant has not named these petitioners, they have only been named by some witness and accordingly, no offence can be said to be made out against these petitioners. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. So far as the allegation of assault is concerned, there is direct allegation in the FIR that the informant was assaulted on his head with an intention to cause his death. The impugned order also shows that there was head injury on the informant. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said at this stage that the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C is not at all made out in the facts of the case. I do not find any -2- illegality and / or irregularity in the impugned order, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed. So far as the alternative submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to petitioners Nos. 6 to 10 is concerned, the same appears to have been taken for the first time in this Court. The impugned order shows that there was no such submission in the Court below and accordingly, the alternative submission on behalf of the petitioners Nos.6 to 10 also cannot be entertained at this stage. However, the petitioner Nos. 6 to 10 are given liberty to file their applications afresh on the said ground, and in case any such application is filed by them in the Court below, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law, on the basis of materials collected against them during the investigation of the case. With these observations, this application stands dismissed. ( H. C. Mishra, J.) BS/