IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8998 of 2010 1. TARUN KUMAR SINGH, son of Parmanand Singh, resident of village Kaale, P.S. Hasanpur, District Samastipur 2. Ram Swarup Singh, son of late Deen Dayal Singh 3. Viveka Nand Singh, son of late Yogenshwar Singh 4. Ghanshyam Singh, son of Ram Swarup Singh, all of them resident of village Bangrahta, P.S. Singhia, District Samastipur Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 31.3.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State. The impugned order rejecting prayer of discharge of the petitioners in terms of section 227 Cr.P.C. is sought to be pressed on the ground that since there was no repetition of blow so as to constitute the offence under section 307 I.P.C. It has been submitted that there are two versions of the same occurrence and the counter case filed by the petitioners is also pending. In the opinion of this Court neither of the aforesaid two grounds can be good enough for allowing the prayer of discharge of the petitioners. There is no requirement in law that for an offence under section 307 I.P.C. there must be an injury or an allegation of assault. The entire 2 circumstances of the case will have to be taken into account only in the light of allegations made in the F.I.R. and the materials collected in course of investigation by the Court at the time of framing charge. Consequently the only thing required to be gone into at the time of discharge would be as to whether there were materials in the case diary and the documents appended thereto to constitute the ingredients of the offence of section 307 I.P.C. The court below in the impugned order after looking into this very aspect has held that there are sufficient materials to constitute offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and therefore, it would be difficult for this court to act as an appellate Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The only other aspect raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner relating to case and counter case would be also beyond the purview of the scope of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. None-the-less as the petitioners claim that the counter case filed by them as with 3 regard to the same occurrence is also pending trial this Court would direct that such pending trial arising out of Singhia P.S.Case No. 55/2001 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur shall also be tried by the same court where the case in hand against the petitioners is pending. With the aforementioned observation and direction this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/