Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.12495 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Asharfi Yadav son of Late Parmeshwar Yadav 2. Narayan Yadav son of Late Parmeshwar Yadav 3. Mahesh Yadav son of Late Parmeshwar Yadav 4. Dinesh Yadav @ Baoku Yadav son of Late Parmeshwar Yadav 5. Dilip Yadav son of Asharfi Yadav 6. Shiv Yadav son of Asharfi Yadav 7. Ashok Yadav son of Asharfi Yadav 8. Naresh Yadav @ Bangat Yadav son of Asharfi Yadav 9. Sobha Yadav son of Asharfi Yadav 10. Rohit Yadav son of Asharfi Yadav 11. Anil Yadav son of Mahesh Yadav 12. Bijay Yadav son of Narayan Yadav 13. Ranjeet Yadav son of Dinesh Yadav @ Bauku Yadav 14. Lal Bahadur Yadav @ Sattar Yadav son of Chit Narayan Yadav All are residents of village-Trimuhani, P.S.-Bahera, District-Darbhanga .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Girish Chandra Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Anita Kumari Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 19-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. In this case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 16.3.2011 by which the court below has refused to delete the [STATUTE] . 3. In the F.I.R. it has been alleged that two days before the date of incident, Dilip Yadav, Sobha Yadav and Naresh Yadav were irrigating their wheat field by the pipe which was going through the field of informant. On 1.3.2008, the informant Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12495 of 2011 (2) dt.19-07-2012 2 / 4 2 was also irrigating the wheat field by the same pipe and on 2.3.2008, Chitnarayan Yadav, Dilip Yadav and other accused were hurling abuses that their wheat has been damaged whereby the informant has given reply in the same tone. At about 5 O’clock all the accused persons named in the F.I.R. came to the house of the informant talking in loud voice to kill him and petitioners were chased, he entered into the house and accused followed and intered into inner courtyard, Chitnarayan Yadav had assaulted with Lathi on his left hand with intention to kill the informant whereas Dilip Yadav had also assaulted the informant with Farsa. Further allegation is that petitioners not only assaulted but had taken away the valuables of the informant and on the basis of this Fardbeyan, an F.I.R. was instituted as Bahera P.S. Case No. 59 of 2008, now is Sessions Trial No. 222/2010. 4. An application under section 227 and 228 Cr. P.C. was filed before the court below making a prayer for deleting the [STATUTE] . on the ground that there is no ingredients of [STATUTE] . and accordingly, no charge can be framed under aforesaid section. The court below has perused the different paragraphs of the case diary and refused to pass the order in favour of petitioners. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submits that from Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12495 of 2011 (2) dt.19-07-2012 3 / 4 3 the side of petitioner also F.I.R. had been lodged as Bahera P.S. Case No. 59/2008 for offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 337, 380/504 and the present case is completely a malicious prosecution. 6. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that injury report does not support the allegation that has been made in the F.I.R. as the nature of injury shown in the injury reports are simple in nature. 7. The counsel for the State has disputed the argument of the counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the nature of allegation and the weapon used which has been mentioned in the F.I.R. clearly shows intention of the petitioners and as such, the court below has rightly refused to exercise the power under sections 227 and 228 Cr. P.C. 8. Having considered the rival contention of the parties it appears from the F.I.R. that the petitioners not only assaulted the informant by the Lathi but also assaulted with the Farsa which has been specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. 9. The court below has also examined the different paragraphs of the case diary from where he has come to a conclusion that there are sufficient materials to proceed with the matter. So far the injury report is concerned, that will be tested at Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12495 of 2011 (2) dt.19-07-2012 4 / 4 4 the time of trial. 10. This Court cannot make any comment on the merit of injury report or otherwise. 11. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in the present case. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However, the direction is given to the court below to expedite the trial. The trial court will not be prejudiced by the outcome of the order of this case and would pass the order on its own merit. Mahesh/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 307

Statute Text:
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Attempt to murder. Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by Life Convicts: When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.