IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.477 of 2008 1. SAUDAGAR CHOUDHARY S/O RAM SUBHAG CHOUDHARY 2. JAGARNATH CHOUDHARY 3. BHIM CHOUDHARY 4. MAHANGU CHOUDHARY 5. DINA CHOUDHARY ( 1 TO 5 ARE SONS OF SAUDAGAR CHOUDHARY) 6. RAJESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY 7. MUKESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY(6 AND 7 SONS OF MAHANGU CHOUDHARY 8. GANADHAR MAHTO SON OF LALDHARI CHOUDHARY ---- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. ANNU DEVI W/O RAM NARESH SINGH ---- OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 04 07.10.2010 Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the impugned order dated 18.03.2008, passed in Sessions trial No. 79 of 2007 submits that the materials on record are not sufficient enough to frame charge under Section 307 of the Penal Code. It is next contended that allegation of assault is confined to only one of the accuseds, namely Rajesh Chaudhary. Learned Court below considered the said submission of the petitioner in the following manner:- “… it has been submitted by the Addl.P.P. that the present petition of the defence is nothing but suppression of facts. There are sufficient evidence in para 3,6,7,8 and 9 of the C.D. which make out a clear cut case u/s 307 IPC along with other sections as per the chargesheet. In para 33 of the C.D. is the injury report which reveals an incised wound on the hand of the victim Annu Devi caused by sharp cutting weapon. Hence it is prayed that the present petition of the defence deserves to be rejected. Heard both sides and perused the record as well as the C.D.. In para 3,6,7, 8 and 9 of the C.D. there is sufficient evidence that the accused persons with intention to kill the informant dealt a farsa blow on her head and when she tried to save herself then that farsa hit the gassa of her left hand causing bleeding injuries as a result of which she had to be admitted in the hospital. The accused made another blow upon the informant by the farsa which hit the door of the house of the informant. In para 33 in the injury report which shows an incised wound in the first web of the left hand between thumb and index finger 1.5” bent and ¾” muscle deep on the informant and though the injury was simple it was opined to have been caused by sharp cutting weapon….” Having regard to the confines of the jurisdiction exercised by learned Court below, this Court is not satisfied that any patent illegality has been committed. Petitioners shall have adequate opportunity to raise/agitate the aforesaid grievance at the trial which shall be considered in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observation the application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)