JUDGEMENT
PRASHANT KUMAR,J. -
(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated
19.02.2011 passed by the District and Sessions Judge -cum -Special Judge, Godda in Special Case no. 09 of 2009, whereby he rejected the
application of the petitioners filed under section 228 of the Cr.P.C. and
hold that prima facie offence against the petitioners made out under
sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(V) of the
Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe ( Prevention of Atrocities ) Act,
1989. Accordingly, the learned court below framed charges against the petitioners under the aforesaid sections.
(2.) It is submitted by Sri Jai Prakash Jha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the learned court below has
committed serious illegality, as it had not considered the documents filed
by the petitioners along with the petition under section 228 of the Cr.P.C.
It is further submitted that the aforesaid documents show that the
informant is not in possession of the land in question. Under the said
circumstance, petitioners had committed no offence, thus, are entitled to
be discharged.
(3.) Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, learned Addl. P.P. and Sri Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 had opposed
the above submissions and submitted that in view of the three Judges
Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath
Padhi" reported in AIR 2005(SC) -359, there is no illegality in the
impugned order. Learned counsel further submitted that the injuries of the
injured, referred in the impugned order, shows that the informant had
received injuries on his head, which is a vital part of the body. It is further
submitted that there is direct allegation against petitioner no.1 that he
assaulted the informant with Farsa on his head. Thus, the injury report
corroborates the allegation made in the FIR. Since, petitioner no.1 had
used Farsa ( a lethal weapon) for assaulting the informant on the head
( vital part of the body), therefore, offence under section 307 of the I.P.C.
made out. It is submitted that since petitioner has interfered with the right
of enjoyment of the informant over the land in question, thus, offence
punishable under section 3(1)(V) of the Scheduled Caste and Schedule
Tribe ( Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, made out.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.