Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43637 of 2010 (2) dt.19-07-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.43637 of 2010 ====================================================== Baboo Lal Prasad, S/O-Late Mahadev Prasad, resident of village-Govindpur P.S.-Manjhagarh, District-Gopalganj .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Dhruv Sah, Son of Asarfi Sah 3. Chandrama Sah, Son of Asarfi Sah 4. Gopal, Son of Sadhu Prasad All are resident of village-Majhawalia, P.S.-Manjhagarh, District- Gopalganj 5. Saukat Ali, Son of Samad Mian, resident of village-Gobindpur, P.S.- Manjhagarh, District- Gopalganj .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 2 19-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the point of admission and, in my view, this petition can be disposed of on admission stage itself without issuance of notice to Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 28.09.2010 passed by Fast Track Court-IV, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 431 of 2005 arising out of Manjhagarh P.S. Case No. 31 of 2003 by which and whereunder learned trial court refused to summon the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5 under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. It would appear from Annexure-1 to the petition that Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43637 of 2010 (2) dt.19-07-2012 Manjhagarh P.S. Case No. 31 of 2003 was initially registered under [STATUTE] on the statement of injured Manoj Kumar who stated that while he was sitting at the door of one Narayan Manjhi a maruti van being driven by its driver, namely, Kanhaiya Prasad in very negligent manner came there and dashed him as a result of which he sustained injury and after that the aforesaid maruti van also dashed to kid of she goat which was died on the spot. The driver of the aforesaid maruti van fled away leaving behind the above stated maruti van. It would further appear that later on [STATUTE] was also added. The matter was investigated by the police and after investigation charge-sheet under [STATUTE] was submitted against Kanhaiya Prasad who happened to be driver of the aforesaid maruti van. It would further appear that aforesaid Kanhaiya Prasad was put on trial and charge was framed against him and in course of trial, three witnesses on behalf of the prosecution were examined. The aforesaid prosecution witnesses stated that due to land dispute, Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5 hatched up a conspiracy along with aforesaid Kanhaiya Prasad and got committed the alleged occurrence giving the colour of accident and as a matter of fact the deceased was Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43637 of 2010 (2) dt.19-07-2012 murdered by Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5 and above stated Kanhaiya Prasad. After the statements of aforesaid prosecution witnesses, a petition under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. was filed for summoning the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5 for facing trial along with aforesaid Kanhaiya Prasad but learned trial court rejected the aforesaid petition and refused to summon the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5 under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that witnesses supported the above stated facts in course of trial. So, there was sufficient material before the learned trial court to summon the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State supported the impugned order arguing that there is no scope to interfere into the impugned order. It would appear from submissions of the parties that according to prosecution witnesses, driver of the aforesaid maruti van dashed twice to injured who later on succumbed to his injuries but admittedly, the present case has been registered on the basis of Ferdbeyan of the deceased but deceased has nowhere stated that he was twice dashed by the driver of the aforesaid maruti van and, therefore, I am of the opinion that learned trial court has rightly passed the impugned order and there is no illegality, irregularity or Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43637 of 2010 (2) dt.19-07-2012 impropriety into the impugned order. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this petition stands dismissed on admission stage itself. SHAHZAD/- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 304

Statute Text:
Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder, If act by which the death is caused is done with intention of causing death, etc. Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.