Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) Heard Md. Zaid Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.
(2.) This application is directed against the order dated 27.03.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad in S.T. Case No. 61 of 2017 whereby and whereunder in the alternative charge has been framed against the petitioners also for the offence u/S. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Madhuban P.S. Case No. 48 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 3862 of 2016.
(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in a mechanical manner charge has been framed u/S. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code without discussing any evidence which would suggest the involvement of the petitioners in committing an offence u/S. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the judgment in case of Rajbir alias Raju and another v. State of Haryana, 2011 AIR(SC) 568 wherein it was held that it was mandatory for the learned trial court to have framed charge in the alternative u/S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code but the said principle was diluted in the case of Jasvinder Saini and others v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), 2014 AIR(SC) 841 and therefore the learned trial court cannot frame charge in such a manner.;