JAGDISH KESHRI ALIAS SAO Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-2005-2-59
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on February 18,2005

JAGADISH KESHRI AND SAO Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The hearing stems from an application filed by the petitioners praying for revision of the order dated 19.06.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2 at Purulia in Sessions Case No. 22/2004 (ST 21/2004) by way of setting aside the same.
(2.) The circumstances leading to the above application are that the de facto-complainant Arun Sao lodged an FIR with Purulia Town P.S. alleging that on 23.10.2003 at about 9.30 a.m. the present petitioners being armed with deadly weapons trespassed into their house, threatened his father with dire consequences if the partition suit is not withdrawn immediately and on account of his protest, with a view to committing murder assaulted him on different parts of his person including head resulting in his bleeding injuries and unconsciousness. When the de-facto complainant and his mother went to his rescue, they too were assaulted. After completion of investigation the police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 452/323/ 307/34 I.P.C., and charge was framed against the petitioners under Sections 147/452/34 and 307/34 I.P.C. on 19.06.2004.
(3.) Mr. Himangshu De, learned Counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submitted that though the impugned order dated 19.06.2004 has been assailed on two-fold grounds, he is not pressing the ground of juvenility of petitioners 2 & 3. As regards the other ground, on referring to the order of anticipatory bail of the petitioners passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-in-Charge, Purulia on 25.11.2003, Mr. De contended that since the father of the informant is alleged to have sustained lacerated injury over right parietal region, it may at best constitute an offence under Section 324 or 325 I.P.C. and not under Section 307 in any way. Mr. R. S. Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, supporting the impugned order of framing charge under Section 307/34 and other provisions of I.P.C., contended that whether the offence is one under Section 325 or 307 I.P.C. is a matter for trial and cannot be expected to be determined at this stage.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.