D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) HEARD the counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has filed the instant application against the order dated 8.1.2008 passed by the trial Court in Sessions trial No. 29 of 2001, whereby the petitioner has been directed to appear and face trial.
(2.) THE case against the petitioner was registered on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant namely Krishna Deo Prasad on 8.5.1999 alleging therein that the accused persons named in the FIR, including the petitioner, after forming an unlawful assembly, variously armed with weapons, come to the house of the informant and after abusing the informant assaulted him with sword and other weapons and when the brothers of the informant tried to rescue, they two were assaulted. Though after concluding investigation, the Police submitted charge -sheet against the accused persons, but the Police did not recommend trial of the petitioner for any offence. In due course, trial commenced after framing of charge against the accused persons who were sent up for trial. In course of trial, witnesses were examined by the prosecution and on considering the statements of the witnesses namely PWs 3, 4 and 5 who had claimed themselves to be the injured witnesses, the trial Court issued summons directing the petitioner to appear and face trial.
(3.) ASSAILING the impugned order, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad in law as well as on facts and it was passed without application of judicial mind. Learned Counsel explains that the Court below has failed to consider the relevant materials on record before deciding to proceed against the petitioner. Learned Counsel explains that the investigation conducted by the police did not offer any incriminating evidence against the petitioner and therefore the petitioner was absolved from the liability of the case even in the charge sheet submitted by the police. Neither the informant nor any of the witnesses examined at the trial had made any such statement which could be suggestive of the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences. Yet, without considering these aspects of the matter, the trial Court issued summons against the petitioner merely on the basis of the general and omnibus statements of the witnesses and that too made after more than eight years of the alleged occurrence.;