- (1.) In this Revision Application filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code"), the four petitioners have challenged the order dated 30.03.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.- II, Chatra in S.T. No. 37 of 2010 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioners, for their discharge under Section 227 of the Code, has been rejected.
(2.) The petitioners have been made accused in Tandwa P.S. case no. 27 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. Case no. 390 of 2008 for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that on 07.04.2008 at about 8:30 P.M., the petitioners came to the house of the informant Malti Devi and called her husband Sarvjit Yadav and took him along with them for eating chicken but when the husband of the informant did not return in the night, she tried to search her husband when one Prabhu Yadav, who found the husband of the informant lying dead on the road in the morning, informed the informant. The informant came to know that after eating chicken, her husband along with the petitioners had gone for quarrying boulder in village Koyad whereafter the dead body was found. The informant suspects that petitioners have killed her husband.
(3.) It appears from the record that after investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against only one accused Chandrasekhar Singh under Sections 279, 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 134 of M.V. Act and submitted the final form against the other petitioners namely Kedar Yadav, Bishun Ganjhu @ Bigan Ganjhu @ Rambesar Ganjhu and Chaturgun Sao and they were not sent up for trial. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate finding sufficiency of evidence and materials on record including the statements of two witnesses Lal Kishun Yadav and Triveni Yadav differing from the police report, took cognizance of the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code not only against the petitioner no.1 Chandrasekhar Singh but also against the other three petitioners. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the petitioners filed the petition under Section 227 of the Code for their discharge, which was rejected vide order dated 30.03.2010. It further appears from the record that the petitioners never challenged the order taking cognizance before any Court.;