IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8143 of 2008 1. YOGENDRA PANDEY 2. HARIDWAR PANDEY 3. NARVADA PANDEY ALL SONS OF LATE LAXMAN PANDEY 4. MANOJ PANDEY, SON OF YOGENDRA PANDEY 5. SUSHIL TIWARY, SON OF LATE UDAI MAN TIWARY ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GAUNAHI, P.S. SATHI, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH. ---- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MADAN TIWARY, SON OF LATE VISHWANATH TIWARY,RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GAUNAHI, P.S. SATHI, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH.--- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 2 27.1.2010 Heard the parties. Petitioners have challenged the order dated 28.9.2007, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Vth, Bettiah (West Champaran) in Sessions Trial No. 46/2007 by which the Court below has refused to discharge the petitioners for offences alleged to have been committed besides other Section under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is specific allegation that Narvada Pandey had given a Farsa blow on the head of the informant, as a result of which the informant received a cut injury on the head. It is also alleged that Haridwar Pandey had given a given a lathi blow on the back and there was also an injury inflicted by a Bhala on the wrist/hand of the informant’s brother. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the nature of the injuries do not make out an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code as the injury on the head is not a cut wound rather a lacerated wound. The injury report and the types of injuries that have been received is matter of trail and the Court will consider the oral evidence 2 along with medical evidence before convicting the petitioners under Section 307 or under Sections 323 or 324 of the Penal Code or acquitting them of the offences whatever may be appropriate. At this stage, it is not proper for this Court to interfere with the order dated 28.9.2007 which is in accordance with law. This application is dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)