IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.984 of 2008 RAJENDRA SINGH SON OF KUNWAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KONI, P.S. TANDWA, DISTRICT AURANGABAD …..PETITIONERS Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.NARESH MAHTO SON OF PANCHU MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-KONI, P.S.TANDWA, DISTRICT AURANGABAD ….OPPOSITE PARTIES With CR. REV. No.1035 of 2008 1.KRISHNA SINGH SON OF ISHWARI SINGH 2.PRAMOD SINGH, SON OF CHANDRIKA SINGH 3.CHANDAN KUMAR SINGH SON OF RAJENDRA SINGH 4.DILIP MAHTO SON OF LATE SITA RAM MAHTO 5.SANTOSH MAHTO SON OF LATE SITA RAM MAHTO 6.VIJAY MAHTO SON OF DHANESHWAR MAHTO 7.JITENDRA MAHTO SON OF RAM RAJ MAHTO ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE KONI, P.S.TANDWA, DISTRICT AURANGABAD ….PETITIONERS Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.NARESH MAHTO SON OF PANCHU MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-KONI, P.S.TANDWA, DISTRICT AURANGABAD ….OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 3 13.5.2009 As both these cases arise from common police case being Tandwa P.S. Case No.25 of 2005, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. In Criminal Revision No. 984 of 2008 there is sole petitioner whereas in Criminal Revision No.1035 of 2008 there are seven petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would appear from the F.I.R. as well as the impugned order of the learned trial court that the allegation of assault by Farsa is only against accused Rajendra Singh, petitioner in Cr. Revision No.984 of 2008. So far as other petitioners are concerned, there is general allegation that they did Marpit with lathi. There is also allegation that they broke the glass of Maruti car. He further submits that F.I.R. was instituted - 2 - KHAN under section 307 of the Penal Code and charge sheet was submitted under sections 323, 427, 504 and 325 of the Penal Code. However, cognizance was taken under section 307 of the Penal Code. All the petitioners filed an application under sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. for their discharge. The learned trial court while rejecting the application of their discharge found that there are sufficient materials for proceeding against accused Rajendra Singh, petitioner in Cr.Revision No.984 of 2008, under section 307 of the Penal Code and one under sections 326, 323, 427, 504 of the Penal Code against petitioners of Cr. Revision No.1035 of 2008. From perusal of the materials on record, there does not appear sufficient material for framing charge under section 326 of the Penal Code but in its place one under section 325 I.P.C. against the petitioners in Cr.Revision No.1035 of 2008. The finding that there is sufficient material for framing charge under sections 323, 427 and 504 of the Penal Code is upheld with substitution of section 325 I.P.C. in place of section 326 I.P.C. Thus, Cr.Revision No.1035 of 2008 is partly allowed to the extent mentioned above. So far as the order of learned trial court finding sufficient material for framing charge under section 307 of the Penal Code against accused Rajendra Singh, petitioner in Cr. Revision 984 of 2005 is concerned, I find no infirmity and as such the revision application stands dismissed. (S.P.Singh,J) - 3 -