IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.19835 of 2007 ***** 1. Kamlesh Yadav, son of Bindeshwar Yadav 2. Ram Babu Yadav, son of Bindeshwar Yadav 3. Dinesh Singh, son of Pyare Yadav 4. Mithal Singh @ Mithelsh Yadav, son of Rajdeo Yadav All resident of village- Akhtyapur, P.S. Parasbigha, District Jehanabad. …. …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Jitendra Yadav, son of Late Moda Yadav, R/o village Akhtayarpur, P.S. Parasbigha, Distt. Jehanabad. …. …. Opposite parties WITH Cr. Misc. No.8346 of 2007 ***** Bijan Singh @ Bijan Yadav, son of Raja Singh @ Raja Ram Yadav, Resident of Arintpur, Police Station-Paras Bigha, District-Jehanabad. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Jitendra Yadav, son of Late Moda Yadav, resident of village- Arwityarpur, P.S. Parasbigha, Distt. Jehanabad. …. …. Opposite parties ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Khan, Senior Advocate For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. ---------- 9. 1.7.2009. Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. In both the quashing applications, since the impugned order dated 23.11.2006 passed by Fast Track Court-V, Jehanabad in Sessions Trial No.85/06 is under challenge, the same have been heard and decided together. By virtue of the impugned order the petition for discharge filed on behalf of the petitioners in the aforesaid Sessions Trial, which - 2 - arises out of Paras Bigha P.S. Case No.78/05 under sections 302/34, 504, 323 and 337/34 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code has been rejected by the Court below. The order, therefore, is under challenge in the two quashing applications. The prosecution case leading to the filing of the case in question is that on 28.7.2005 due to some altercation between the parties namely, Nagendra and Kamlesh they got in a dispute which led to brick batting, one Raja received injuries on his head. When the informant, namely, Jitendra Yadav intervened Bindeshwar fired from his gun which hit one Geeta Devi and she had to be taken to hospital where she subsequently died. There are other accused who are supposed to have played their role as is reflected from the F.I.R. Application for discharge came to be filed and it was duly considered by a detailed order dated 23.11.2006 wherein learned trial Court was pleased to reject the same holding that there is sufficiency of material to proceed against the accused persons and no case for discharge is made out. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there are inherent contradiction in the case and allegation which has emerged during investigation with regard to the kind of role which came to be played by the petitioners. If the case diary and the evidence leads to two kinds of conflicting versions then it casts a serious doubt upon the case of the prosecution and in the light of the same it is urged that it may not lead to conviction of the accused persons. Learned A.P.P., however, on the other side submits that the - 3 - order in question has discussed every aspect of the matter, the evidence which has come in investigation as well as the basic material. If there are certain conflicts in the evidence or the narrations of the events with regard to the crime in question the matter will have to be thrashed out on the basis of the evidence which will finally be led and its evaluation by the trial Court. This cannot be made a ground for quashing the case at this stage in such a serious matter where an innocent life has been lost and there are others who also received injuries in the matter. There seems to be some force in the contention of the learned counsel representing the State in this regard. These are matters which can best be sorted out after holding a fair trial in the case because the basic fact that the incident had happened and the crime was committed is not in dispute, ultimately, it is best left to the wisdom of the trial Court to fasten the liability and identify the responsibility of the accused persons dependent on the evidence which may come during the court of the trial. The impugned order gives the reason for rejecting the application for discharge and the same does not suffer from any legal vice which can compel this Court to interfere with the same in any manner. The applications have no merit. They are accordingly dismissed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)