Jharkhand High Court
Basudeo Sahu And Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand on 31 October, 2017
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 438 of 2017
--
1. Basudeo Sahu
2. Chandan Sahu
3. Fuleshwar Sahu
4. Babulal Mahto .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Gaurav Priyadarshi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vijay Shankar Prasad, A.P.P.
---
Order No. 06 Dated 31st October, 2017
Heard Mr. Gaurav Priyadarshi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Vijay Shankar Prasad, learned APP for the State.
This application is directed against the order dated 17.02.2017 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi in S.T. No. 689 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the discharge application preferred by the petitioners, has been rejected.
It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that the incident had taken place on account of land dispute and in fact all the petitioners on account of such dispute falsely implicated in this case. It has also been submitted that all the injuries sustained by the informant party were opined to be simple in nature. It has also been submitted that there was no intention to commit the murder of the informant and others and therefore no case u/s 307 I.P.C. is made out and hence the impugned order dated 17.02.2017 deserved to be set aside.
Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners.
It appears from the allegation made in the F.I.R. that the accused persons had called the informant on 04.02.2016 on the site and as soon as the informant and his family members came, the accused persons had started abusing them and thereafter the accused persons with iron rods had assaulted the informant, his wife, his father, his brother and his sister-in-law, who had sustained injuries. The background of the prosecution points towards a pre-conceived plan made by the accused persons in which they had called the informant party and had assaulted them with deadly weapon, which resulted in injuries suffered by them.
2.Even if it is presumed that the injuries were simple in nature, but that by itself cannot dissuade the allegation made u/s 307 I.P.C. in view of the injury sustained by the father and wife of the informant on the scalp which would further point to the intention of the accused persons.
These facts having been properly considered in the impugned order dated 17.02.2017, I am not inclined to entertain this application. This application sans merit, is accordingly dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) MK