- (1.) Challenge in this revision application is to the order dated 09.09.2014 passed by Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Criminal Appeal no. 44 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the court has allowed the appeal preferred by the present opposite party no.2 against the order dated 19.06.2014 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jamtara in Karmatar P.S. Case no. 11 of 2010 wherein a petition filed by the opposite party no.2 under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code") was rejected being not maintainable.
(2.) The prosecution case, as it reveals from the fardbeyan of the informant Kamdeo Yadav the present opposite party no.2, is that on 05.03.2010, while this informant was in his field, he saw his nephew Binod Yadav talking with one Dinesh Yadav and his brotherin-law Balram Yadav and at about 4.00 p.m., all the three above persons went to Karmatar on a motorcycle and his nephew conveyed him that he along with those two persons are going to watch a programme of a Bhojpuri Singer at village Baskupi. When the nephew of the informant did not return in the night and even in the morning, then the mother of the informant went to the house of Dinesh Yadav and enquired about Binod Yadav, but she replied that her son has gone to Tata. It is also alleged that after some time, one Duryodhan Yadav came to his house and informed that Binod Yadav has not accompanied Dinesh Yadav to Tata. Thereafter, the family members of the informant tried to search Binod Yadav, but could not find him. On 07.03.2013 at about 3.00 P.M., some women of the village, who had gone to ease themselves towards the western side of the village, saw a dead body floating in a well. On hearing this information, the informant along with his family members went there and identified the body as of his nephew Binod Yadav. The informant suspects that as his nephew Binod Yadav had talking term with the wife of Dinesh Yadav, the family members of Dinesh Yadav were annoyed of Binod Yadav, they having common intention killed his nephew (Bhagina) Binod Yadav and with the intention to conceal, thrown the dead body in the well.
(3.) After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against only two accused persons namely Dinesh Yadav and Balram Yadav and submitted the final form against the petitioners and accordingly, the learned chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Balram Yadav and Dinesh Yadav. Whereafter, a petition was filed by the present opposite party no.2 before the said court to summon the petitioners also to face trial, but the said petition was rejected by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 04.09.2010. It appears that the case of Balram Yadav and Dinesh Yadav was referred to Juvenile Justice Board, Jamtara as they were declared juvenile by competent court for proper inquiry i.e. trial. Accordingly, the inquiry as contemplated under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was initiated against Balram Yadav and Dinesh Yadav. After examination of almost 13 witnesses, a petition was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code praying therein to summon the petitioners also to face the trial but the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Jamtara vide order dated 19.06.2014 rejected the prayer of the prosecution holding the same as not maintainable. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party no.2 preferred appeal before the Sessions Judge, Jamtara and the said court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the court below for hearing the parties afresh and pass necessary order using its jurisdiction under Section 323 of the Code, if the learned court below finds sufficient evidence to proceed against the two petitioners namely Raju Yadav and Duryodhan Yadav. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order of the appellate court, preferred this revision.;