IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1808 of 2009 1. Nepo Singh @ Binod Singh @ Ram Binod Singh, son of Late Ram Prakash Singh. 2. Rakesh Singh, son of Nepo @ Binod Singh @ Ram Binod Singh. 3. Ram Bharos Singh, son of Late Ram Balak Singh. (All residents of village-Ratanpur, P.S.-Begusarai Town, District- Begusarai) ……..Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Chandradeo Singh, son of Late Baudhu Singh, resident of village- Dumari, P.S.- Begusarai Mufassil (Singhaul), District- Begusarai. ……..Opposite Parties ---------------------------------- 2. 08.12.2011 The accused petitioners have preferred this revision application against the order dated 14.09.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, IVth, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No.525 of 2009 arising out of Begusarai Mufassil P.S. Case No.339 of 2007 by which petition filed under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is made out against them as there is no injury of firearms and the injuries caused are not fatal for life. The learned counsel for the State submits that there is specific allegation that the firearms have 2 been used aiming the informant and to save himself he fell down. Thereafter, other accused Niranjan Singh has assaulted with the butt of the rifle and other accused persons assaulted him with Lathi. After the cry of the informant, his nephew namely, Janardan Singh, Rajesh Singh @ Bhagat Singh, Shobha Devi @ Mina came to save him, who were also assaulted. The injury is not the prime factor for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. Intention of the accused shows that they had intention to kill the informant. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that contention of the learned counsel for the State is correct. The learned trial court has considered the evidence as well as the intention to cause the injuries and the injuries have been found to be fatal as the injuries have been found on the head of the informant. After considering all these materials, the learned trial court has found a prima facie material on the record to show that the accused were having the intention to cause such injuries, which could be fatal for the life of the injured person and thereafter, the petition filed by the 3 accused under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)