Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.13764 of 2012 ====================================================== Rakesh Kumar son of Sri Chaturbhuj Singh, resident of village-Sakarware, Tola, Noor, Tukra No.2, P.S. Gaighat, District-Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 2 03-04-2012 Heard Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha No.3, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.08.2011 passed by Sri G.R. Tripathi, learned Additional Sessions Judge- IV, Muzaffarpur in Cr. Revision No. 53 of 2011 whereby the learned Judge has been pleased to dismiss the revision application preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 16.03.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur to the extent the learned Magistrate has not been pleased to take cognizance of the offence punishable under [STATUTE] while taking cognizance of the offence punishable under [STATUTE] . Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13764 of 2012 (2) dt.03-04-2012 2 / 3 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the allegation made in the F.I.R. submits that the assault by the accused on the vital portion of the body being the scalp of the informant, the allegation finds support from the injury report present at Annexure-2 which attributes no less than 3 injuries on the head of the informant of which injury Nos. 1 and 2 have been opined as being danger to the life of the informant although the injuries otherwise have been termed as simple in nature. The police upon investigation submitted chargesheet under [STATUTE] against the accused persons. The cognizance was taken in the light of the chargesheet submitted by the police. It is a contention of the petitioner that considering the nature of injury and the case having been instituted also under [STATUTE] , learned Magistrate ought to have taken cognizance of the said offence also and it is in the aforesaid circumstances, that the criminal revision application in question bearing Cr. Rev. No. 53 of 2011 was preferred by the petitioner which the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Muzaffarpur by the order impugned dated 27.08.2011 has disposed of affording liberty to the petitioner to raise all the issues as raised before the Revisional Court at the stage of framing of charge/substance of accusation. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13764 of 2012 (2) dt.03-04-2012 3 / 3 3 The provisions of Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also amply empowers the Magistrate to take appropriate decision for commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, even after commencement of inquiry or trial provided the circumstances so exist and the Magistrate is so satisfied. Regard being had to the circumstances as also the liberty afforded to the petitioner by the learned Revisional Court below, no indulgence is called for in the impugned order and this application is accordingly disposed of. Bibhash/- (Jyoti Saran, 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.