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: 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.