IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39074 of 2007 1. RAM SUNDAR SINGH SON OF LATE MUNSHI SINGH 2. KRISHNA SINGH 3. SUDARSHAN SINGH BOTH 2 AND 3 ARE THE SONS OF RAM SUNDAR SINGH 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE KALIBIGHA, P.S.- ROHTAS (AMJHOR) DISTT. ROHTAS. 4. HIRA SINGH, SON OF RAM BRIT SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- LOHARADIH, P.S.- TILAUTHU, DISTT. ROHTAS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BIGU YADAV, SON OF RAM PATI YADAV VILLAE BHADASA, P.S.- AMJHORE, DIST. ROHTAS. For the petitioners : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 5 18.08.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 1.7.2007 passed by learned Trial Judge ((Addl. Distt. Sessions Judge- F.T.C. no. 1) Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 121 of 2006 whereby their application seeking discharge filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) was considered and rejected. The aforesaid trial germinates out of Rohtas P.S. case no. 156 of 2000 initially instituted under Section 279, 304A of Indian Penal Code. The same was lodged on the basis of the statement made by the father of the deceased Sunil Yadav. It is alleged therein that the son of the informant was working as khalasi on the truck owned by accused persons. There was a serious dispute with regard to the accounting of the payments between the parties. On the date of occurrence, the deceased 2 was at the house of the owners of the truck (accused persons). The informant along with his another son went to the said place and requested the accused persons to allow his son to go back home. It is the case of the informant in the F.I.R. that as they were returning back, the deceased sat to urinate when a truck coming from opposite direction hit him and as a result whereof, he died subsequently. Going by the F.I.R., it is a case of hit and run. In course of investigation, it has been found that the deceased was serving on the truck of the petitioner no. 1 since last few years. A dispute had arisen between the owner(s) with regard to payment of certain amount. The deceased was being tortured on that count by the petitioners. On the date of occurrence, he was not being allowed to go home by the accused persons whereafter the informant had reached the house of the accused persons and requested them to allow the deceased to go back home on the plea that amount shall be paid in due course. It appears that some of the witnesses subsequently spelt out the background of the case in which deceased was done to death in a suspicious circumstances. Statement of some of the witnesses are also on record that threatening were held out to the informant by the accused persons for not disclosing the true state of affairs. The I.O. thereafter started investigation on this aspect of the matter whereafter it was revealed that it was not a simple case of hit and run. Accordingly charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons which gave rise to the order taking 3 cognizance and ultimately to the impugned order. Learned counsel submits that initially the case was lodged under sections 304A and 279 of Indian Penal Code on the strength of the statement of the father of the deceased who has projected himself as eye witness to the occurrence. In that view of the matter, the subsequent suspicion raised by the witnesses including the informant and the other inmates of the family, statement whereof find recorded in paragraph nos. 8, 9, 10 and 90 to 98 of the case diary has no meaning and the court below was not justified in taking cognizance on the strength of those statements. Law is well settled that even on strong suspicion an accused can be tried. Materials on record emit circumstance which lend support to strong suspicion. Considering this aspect of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. It is dismissed. Let it be recorded that the observations made in this order are for the purpose of disposal of the present application. They shall not be construed as finding(s) of this Court. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )