Ravi Nath Verma, J. - (1.) Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code"), the petitioner has questioned the legality of the order dated 04.02.2015 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-V, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 01 of 2014 arising out of Ratu (Nagri) P.S. Case no. 132 of 2008 whereby and where under the petition filed by the petitioner for his discharge under Section 227 of the Code has been rejected.
(2.) The factual score as depicted in the first information report lodged at the instance of the informant-Jagarnath Mahato, in short, is that the informant is the owner of the land of Khata no. 326, plot nos. 1982 and 1983 having an area 75-75 decimals each situated at Mouza Dhedhe-Tikra, which was provided to him under the "Bhoodan" programme of Ratu Anchal in the year 1970 and after allotment of the said land, his name was mutated and rent receipts were also issued in his name. On 06.07.2008 at about 3.00 P.M., when the informant went to plough his field by a tractor of Bajrang Saw, this petitioner-Dilruba Anshari along with other persons came on motorcycle and opposed the ploughing of the field and abused and assaulted the informant by means of fists, kick and Danda. It is also alleged that while the accused persons were assaulting him, 8-10 unknown Muslim boys came on a tempo and they all assaulted him with an intention to kill him and they also burnt the said tractor. The informant raised alarm but the accused persons lifted and kept him in a tempo and brought him to Masjid Chowk where other accused persons again assaulted the informant by means of fists, leg and Danda but anyhow, the informant saved his life by entering into a watch shop. The informant received hurt on chest, abdomen, back, head and right elbow where after police came and saved the informant from further assault. The accused persons had also assaulted the driver of the tractor namely Sagar Mahato.
(3.) It appears from the record that on the same day, two other cases bearing Ratu P.S. Case No. 133 of 2008 and Ratu P.S. Case no. 134 of 2008 were also instituted against the petitioner and other accused persons but in those two cases, police after investigation submitted final form showing the case not true and the petitioner was not sent up for trial but in the instant case, the police submitted the charge sheet against this petitioner and, accordingly, the court took cognizance of offence under Sections 341, 364, 447, 323, 307, 435, 504 and 153(A)/34 I.P.C. and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The petitioner at the time of framing of charge, filed a petition under Section 227 of the Code for his discharge on the ground that there is no evidence on record to show his complicity in the alleged offence but the court below by the order impugned, rejected the prayer for his discharge. Hence, this revision.;