IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.31380 OF 2008 1. PARMANAND MAHTO, SON OF LATE LADDULAL MAHTO 2. VIVEKANAND MAHTO, SON OF LATE LADDULAL MAHTO 3. PREM SAGAR MAHTO, SON OF LATE LADDULAL MAHTO 4. PRAKASH MAHTO, SON OF PARMANAND MAHTO 5. DHIRAJ MAHTO, SON OF PARMANAND MAHTO 6. RUBI KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF PARMANAND MAHTO 7. MUNILAL MAHTO, SON OF VIVEKANAND MAHTO ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SADPUR, POLICE STATION SAHEBPUR KAMAL, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI ……………………………………………………………………………….PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DEVAN KUMAR MAHTO, SON OF LATE GANESH MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SADPUR, POLICE STATION SAHEBPUR KAMAL, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI ……………………………………………………………………….OPPOSITE PARTIES ********** 2 27/06/2011 Heard Counsel for the petitioners and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 02.05.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 339 of 2007 (Sahebpur Kamal Police Station Case No. 34 of 2006) by which the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Begusarai has refused to discharge the petitioners for the offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 147, 148, 323, 341, 324, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire occurrence has taken place due to land dispute. The injuries except one are all simple in nature and as such, no offence is made out under Section 307 of the 2 Indian Penal Code. The question whether the ingredients of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code would be attracted in this case would depend upon the evidence led during the trial, manner of occurrence and the injuries. If the Trial Court on examining the witnesses finds that it is not a case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, it would obviously passed an appropriate orders in accordance with law. At this stage, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order impugned. This application is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)