IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1645 of 2009 Manoj Choudhary, s/o Late Fudan Choudhary, r/o- village Mathurapur Loniachak, P.S.- Parbatta, District- Khagaria. … Petitioner. Versus State Of Bihar … Opposite Party. ----------- 2. 23.11.2011 The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 5.9.2009 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khagaria in Sessions Case No. 98 of 2009 by which the petition under Section 227 read with section 228 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused including the petitioner has been rejected. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 2.9.2008 at about 12.30 p.m. the informant Bhanu Chaudhary was sleeping at his Darwaja. In the meantime all the accused including the petitioner arrived there and asked him to tell his friend Pappu to stop making complaint and when the informant said that who was he to say Pappu Chaudhary not to make any complainant. Thereafter, accused Rabindra Chaudhary asked the co- accused to assault the informant and Rabindra Chaudhary shot fire. Anyhow the informant saved himself and thereafter Manoj Chaudhary (petitioner) 2 inflicted injury on the left side of the chest of the informant with Sang (a weapon used in killing of snakes). On hulla raised the witnesses arrived there, thereafter, the accused fled away. The inured was taken to the hospital and his fard beyan has been recorded on 2.9.2008 at about 5 P.M. at J.N.M.C.H., Bhagalpur, Emergency Ward No. 11. The petitioner filed petition under Section 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Parbatta (Bharatkhand) P. S. Case No. 171 of 2008 was instituted against the petitioners. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the court of session and registered as Sessions Case No. 98 of 2009. The petitioner and others filed an application on 1.8.2009 under Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. for their discharge on the ground that no case is made out against the petitioner and other accused and in any case offence under Section 307 is not made out. It is further submitted that there is no material on record to show that there is repetition of firearms or Sanga 3 which is assessed to be caused injury on the chest of the informant, as such no offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out and the other sections are trialable by the learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that for constituting offence under Section 307 I.P.C injury is not prime material. It is the intention of the accused which is to be considered to make out an offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. Learned trial court has considered the evidence on record minutely and has found that an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner. He has used the firearm as well as sanga which is equally a deadly weapon. Sanga has also caused injury on the chest of the informant which is a vital part of a person. There is evidence that I.O. has recovered empty cartridges from the place of occurrence. There is also material on record to show that one of the accused shot fire on the informant and any how he could save his life from the fire-shot. Learned trial court has also found that there is sufficient material on record for framing of charge against the accused including the petitioner 4 for the offence punishable under Section 307 and 307/34, 341, 504 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State it appears that the contention of learned counsel for the State is correct. The learned trial court has considered the submission of the accused and has also gone through the case diary and thereafter, he has come to the finding that prima facie case is made out under Section 307 I.P.C. against the accused besides other minor section of I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act. Considering the facts and circumstances, stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)