IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28983 of 2008 ARVIND KUMAR JHA @ GUDDU @ GUDDU JHA Versus THE STATE OIF BIHAR ----------- 3. 9.9.2008 Heard. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. of a case under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The assault part of the allegation is that accused Nirmal Jha caught hold of both the hands of the deceased upon which accused Pintu Jha dealt blows with danda on him. This petitioner Arvind Kumar Jha is alleged thereafter to have dealt farasa blow causing bleeding injuries on the head of the deceased. The contention is that the allegation is of dealing blows by a sharp cutting weapon causing injuries to the deceased but the medical report does not contain any injury and as soon as this dawned upon the prosecution side, they immediately changed their stance and introduced a story of using the blunt part of the weapon (Farsa) by this petitioner Arvind Kumar Jha so as to giving blows on the head of the deceased. Learned A.P.P. appears receiving quite some good support from the counsel for the informant, who has supplied copy of the case diary. He read out to me para-6 of the case diary and submitted that further statement was made on the same day the fardbeyan was recorded and the witness stated that this petitioner dealt a blow with the blunt part of the Farsa. It is contended that the contention of the defence that it was an improvisation on the - 2 - allegation against the present petitioner does not appear holding good. Learned A.P.P. in his further contention has read out to me para-4 of the rejection order wherein the submissions of the A.P.P. was recorded in that behalf. It is not disputed that the injury caused on the head of the deceased which could be the cause of death was caused by hard and blunt substance and this petitioner was initially bearing the allegation of dealing a blow with Farsa on the head of the deceased. The accused, namely, Pintu Jha, is alleged to have initiated the assault does not bear the allegation of dealing blows on any particular part of the body of the deceased whereas the petitioner does. The question of inconsistency between the allegation and the medical report could be viewed by the trial court at the appropriate stage of the trial. The contention of the learned A.P.P. is also to be considered in the light of the fact and I do not see any inconsistency for the present to decide the present petition and, as such, considering that the petitioner could be categorized as the assailant of the deceased, I am not inclined to direct release of the petitioner on bail. The petition is dismissed. sudip ( Dharnidhar Jha,J )