IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36972 of 2007 1. ZUBAIR MIAN @ MD. ZUBAIR AHMAD 2. MD ILIYAS AHMAD 3. MD. MAHBOOB ALAM 4. GULAM MUSTAFA, ALL RESIDENT OF PINJRAWAN, KURTHA, ARWAL 5. SITA RAM @ SITA RAM YADAV 6. BRAHMDEO YADAV 7. CHANDERDEEP YADAV 8. ARJUN YADAV, ALL RESIDENT OF PURBARIBAGH, KURTHA, PINJRAWAN, ARWAL & 9. RAMADHAR YADAV, SADIKPUR, KARASHI, JEHANABAD. VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR -------- 8 01.02.2010. In the instant petition, the petitioner prays for quashing of order dated 10.5.2007, passed by Additional sessions judge, Jehanabad, whereby he rejected the application of petitioner to discharge him under section 227 Cr.P.C. for offences under sections 147,148,149,302,201 I.P.C. and 27 Arms Act in Kurtha Police Station case no. 125 of 1984 bearing Sessions Trial No. 383 of 2002. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the ground that not only post mortem report does not support the prosecution case, but it is in conflict of it. As per the prosecution case all the accused persons opened fire at informant’s brother Ram Chandra Yadav who sustained injuries and fell. The accused dragged him towards village Pijrama. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the post mortem report does not show any sign of fire arms injuries rather the same would show that head of the deceased was chopped off from the trunk and there was three marks of sharp cutting injuries on the back of the deceased. He submits that no pellets were found on the person of the deceased. Furthermore, none of the witnesses stated that any of the - 2 - accused assaulted the deceased with sharp cutting weapon. Thus learned counsel contends that the informant and the prosecution witnesses have not seen the occurrence and thus there is no sufficient ground for framing of charge. Learned Addl Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State submits that inquest report would show fire arms injuries below the chest of the deceased. He further submits that it is the informant’s case that deceased was dragged towards another village and in such a situation it is quite possible that thereafter the accused persons may have chopped off his head. Heard the parties. It is true that the post mortem report does not mention any fire arms injury, though the allegation in the FIR is that all the accused persons opened fire on the deceased. It is equally true that none of the witnesses stated that accused persons assaulted the deceased with sharp cutting weapon. However, it would appear form the prosecution case that the witnesses did not see complete occurrence as they themselves stated in their statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. that deceased was dragged away to another village. The inquest report shows sign of fire arms injuries, as such, it is difficult for this Court to hold that the prosecution case has no leg to stand and there is no sufficient ground for framing of charge against the petitioner under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is well settled that charge can be framed even on grave suspicion. The quashing application is thus dismissed. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J).