Jharkhand High Court
Lakshmi Narayan Agarwal ? Lakshmi ... vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 November, 2014
Author: Amitav K. Gupta
Bench: Amitav K. Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision. No.362 of 2007
Lakshmi Narayan Agrawal
@ Lakshmi Chandawat .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Choudhary, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P.
---------
05/Dated: 12th November, 2014
This Criminal Revision Application is directed against the order dated 24.04.2007 passed by the learned 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in S.T. Case No.82 of 2002 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C for discharge was rejected.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that there is no ingredient for making out a case for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C against the petitioner; that in the absence of any material regarding prior meeting of mind between the petitioner and co-accused no inference can be drawn that the petitioner shared a common intention to commit the alleged offence and cannot be vicariously liable under Section 34 of the I.P.C; that the injury as per medical report does not support the fact that the injury was caused by explosive substance and the trial court has referred to the injury report (Annexure - 3) in the impugned order wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner sustained a pea-sized lacerated wound on the left leg skin deep 0.5 c.m. X 0.5 c.m. X 0.025 c.m. and no foreign particle was found in the said wound and was simple in nature. It has further been submitted that the police has submitted charge - sheet under Sections 307, 323 and 34 of the I.P.C and did not find any material evidence to support the allegation under Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act which is indicative of the fact that the present case has been falsely instituted on account of prior enmity due to land dispute; that the trial court without appreciating the materials on record has rejected the prayer for discharge.
- 02 -
3. Learned A.P.P has controverted the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel by stating that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is not required to meticulously weigh the evidence neither the court can go into the probative value regarding the plea of the defence; that in the impugned order, the trial court has referred to paras 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 29 of the case diary and recorded its satisfaction that the witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case and held that there is prima facie case is made out against the petitioner under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C and rightly rejected the prayer of discharge.
4. Heard. The plea of the defence that there is no material to show that there is prior meeting of mind between the petitioner and other co-accused in commission of crime is a matter which can be evaluated after the evidence is laid during the trial. However, from perusal of the injury report, it is evident that the petitioner sustained a pea-sized lacerated wound on the left leg, which is not in the vital part of the body and the police has not found any material to show that the assault was by explosive substance and has not submitted charge - sheet under Section 3 /4 of the Explosive Substance Act.
Thus, in the given facts, the ingredients for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C is lacking however, there is material to proceed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside to that extent noted above and the court below shall expedite the trial after hearing the parties.
(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.) Chandan/-