IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.10438 of 2008 1. KAILASH SINGH, S/O LATE KANGALU LAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAWA TOLI P.S. ANGARH, DISTRICT PURNIA 2. KALI CHARAN SINGH, S/O BUDH LAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KANHAUR, P.S. ANGARH, DISTRICT PURNIA .. PETITIONERS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR .. OPPOSITE PARTY **** /2/ 19.05.2010 Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the order, dated 19.05.2006, by which the charge has been framed against the petitioners under Section 302/34 of the Penal Code. 3. The prosecution, as alleged, by the informant that the deceased, the son of the informant, who was a driver of the jeep of the owners Kailash Singh and Kalicharan Singh and wake the informant up and said that his son, Jitendra Kumar Singh, died in accident and when the informant woke up and came out he saw his son lying in the jeep in a dead state. The further case is that his son had been to take the jeep which was reserved for a Barat and the son of he informant who was the driver took the jeep and in way the jeep turned down and some of the ladies on the jeep - 2 - fell down from the jeep causing some injuries and at the instance of the ladies the driver was assaulted and died and, thereafter, the deceased was brought in a dead state along with Kailash Singh and Kalicharan Singh. However, the first information report was lodged and on investigation the charge was framed against the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contends that they were owners of the jeep. However, there is allegation about the assault and the learned counsel for the petitioners himself has attached the deposition which was recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code and in the said deposition of Sobin Lal Sharma, the name of the petitioners find place, who stated that Kailash Singh and Kalicharan Singh were amongst the persons who assaulted the driver and in the deposition of Sheetal Prasad Singh there is name of Kailash Singh who were amongst the persons assaulting the deceased due to which the driver died. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 2, Kalicharan Singh, is in litigating term with Sheetal Prasad Singh, the witness, and there is a civil litigation between them. It is contended that his evidence is - 3 - merely because there is enmity. 4. If it is admitted that there is enmity then the statement of Sheetal Prasad Singh can not be ignored and evidence is only to be looked into at the final state of trial and at the time of framing of charge the Court has only to see that there is any prima facie material against the petitioners. 5. Hence, I do not find any merit in this case. This application is rejected. S.A. (Gopal Prasad, J. )