Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1400 of 2012 (2) dt.06-03-2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.1400 of 2012 ====================================================== Nand Kishore Yadav .... .... Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner : Mr. Sushil Kumar Mallick, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER --------- 2 06.03.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and, in my opinion, this petition can be disposed off at the admission stage itself. Petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court, challenged the order dated 27.6.2011 passed in Sessions Trial no.4/2011 by Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC No. II, Jehanabad by which and whereunder he framed charges under [STATUTE] and 27 of the Arms Act against the petitioner and other accused persons. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that statement of the informant was recorded on 12.3.2009 and on the basis of the aforesaid statement Ghoshi P.S. Case no. 55/2009 was registered under [STATUTE] and 27 of the Arms Act but after death of the victim [STATUTE] was also added. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the informant only claimed to have seen the petitioner fleeing from the place of the occurrence. It is further contended by Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1400 of 2012 (2) dt.06-03-2012 2 him that again the statement of the father of the deceased was recorded on the same day and in the said statement, he claimed to have seen the petitioner committing murder of the deceased and, therefore, in view of the contradictory statements, prosecution case becomes doubtful. It is further contended by him that the post mortem report of the deceased reveals that the deceased developed complication and died due to septicemia and, therefore, no case under [STATUTE] is made out and the learned trial Judge has committed an error in framing charge under [STATUTE] . I am not at all convinced with the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and accordingly, I do not find any merit in this petition and this petition stands dismissed at the admission stage itself. Shahid ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)

Applicable IPC Section: 326

Statute Text:
Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.