IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.885 of 2008 1. Yashwant Singh, son of Ram Sewak Prasad. 2. Birendra Kumar Singh @ Raja, son of Yashwant Singh (Both residents of village-Laskaripur, P.S.-Kanti, District- Muzaffarpur) …..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Gauri Shankar Bhagat, son of Bishun Dayal Bhagat, resident of village- Koihua-Paigambarpur, P.S.-Ahiapur, District- Muzaffarpur. ……….Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- 3. 02.12.2011 The accused petitioners have preferred this revision application against the order dated 25.07.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.V in S.T.No.31/2008 by which the petition filed by the accused under Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it appears that there is no material on the record to frame charge under Section 307 of the I.P.C. against the accused and both the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. There is no injury of firearms. There is no specific allegation that the petitioners to have assaulted the informant and his brother. The learned counsel for the State submits that there is material on the record to show that at the instigation of the petitioner no.1 Yashwant Singh, the co- 2 accused Birendra Singh, petitioner no.2 fired on the informant, but the firing missed, it did not hit him. In the meantime, the other co-accused with common intention have assaulted the informant brutally and when his brother came to his rescue, he was also assaulted. There is sufficient material in the case diary to show that the accused have also committed offence. Under Section 307 of the I.P.C. injuries is not the prime factor for making it a case under Section 307 of the I.P.C. The learned trial court has considered the material on the record and in the case diary and has passed this order. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the case diary, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the State is correct. After considering all the materials on record, the learned trial court has found that there is sufficient material for presuming that the accused have committed offence under Sections 342, 323, 379, 307, 504/34 of the I.P.C. 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.)