IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41425 of 2007 BABLU RAI, S/o Late Kalanand Rai , R/o village Ramnagar, P.S. K. Hat, Dist – Purnia …… Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Amita Devi, W/o Sunil Thakur, r/o Ramnagar, P.S. K.Hat Dist – Purnia ….. Opp. Parties ----------- 4 18.12.2008 Heard Dr. Bidhu Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner through this application has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 30.8.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Purnea, in Sessions Trial no. 836 of 2006, whereby he has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for his discharge under section 307 I.P.C. and section 27 of the Arms Act. According to the prosecution case based on the fardbeyan of one Amita Devi given at the Sadar Hospital, while she was cleaning her utensils and her husband was cleaning the septic tank a sound of firing came from the eastern side which hit her on the right back side of her waist and she fell down and then she saw accused Bablu Rai who had fired from the window. It was further said that the bathroom of the informant is infront of the window of the accused Bablu Rai. The injured was carried to the hospital by neighbours for - 2 - treatment. The reason for the occurrence is said to be previous enmity. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in course of investigation the Investigating Officer did not find any blood at the P.O. and the injury sustained by the injured, according to doctor, who examined her, was an old wound. For an offence under section 307 I.P.C. no injury is required to be caused. It is the intent and mens rea which is to be looked into for deducing whether an offence under section 307 I.P.C. has been committed or not. Then again whether blood was found on the P.O. or not is a matter which has to be looked into in course of the trial. Even otherwise the petitioner has wasted sufficient time in getting this matter heard as would be apparent from the order sheet. Be that as it may I find no apparent illegality , irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order of the Sessions Court. Another doubt raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the prosecution story is improbable and unbelievable because firing taking place from the first floor had caused injury to the informant on the ground floor. This submission of the learned counsel is factually not correct. It is - 3 - apparent from paragraph 3 of the application that the bathroom of the informant is in front of the window of the accused Bablu Rai. In this situation to raise a plea of improbability is hardly justified. Even otherwise the impugned order speaks for itself which I, do approve. Whatever points have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are all his defence which cannot be looked into in his defence and the bona fide and mala fide of the defence can only be deduced from the evidence led at the trial. In view of the discussions made above there is no merit in this application which is dismissed. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)