IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.971 of 2008 1. INDRADEO CHAUDHARY, SON OF BHAIYAN CHAUDHARY 2. VISHNUDEO CHAUDHARY, SON OF BHAIYAN CHAUDHARY 3. SHIVDEO CHAUDHARY, SON OF BHAIYAN CHAUDHARY 4. AWADHESH CHAUDHARY, SON OF VISHNUDEO CHAUDHARY 5. SURESH CHAUDHARY, SON OF VISHNUDEO CHAUDHARY 6. SHANKAR CHAUDHARY, SON OF SHIVDEO CHAUDHARY ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE PITHA DEODHI, P.S. ROSERA, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. ---- PETITIOENRS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. LALIT PASWAN, SON OF RAM KHELAWAN PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE FATEHPUR, P.O. & P.S. ROSERA, SAMASTIPUR. ---- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 3 9.4.2010 Heard the parties. This application has been filed against the order dated 23.8.2007, passed in Sessions Trial No. 148 of 2001 by the Special Judge, S.C. & S.T. Act, Samastipur by which the Court has refused to discharge the petitioners under Sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the First Information Report discloses that the intention of the parties was to call the injured person for some reason. It is said that he refused to go and, therefore, he was dragged by rope around his neck. The charge sheet was not submitted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code nor has the Court taken cognizance under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the Court has wrongly interpreted that the petitioners have the intention to kill the informant. The injuries are simple in nature. It is submitted that there was no intervening circumstances to prevent the petitioners from causing death or even inflicting grievous injuries on the informant. The very fact that none of the injuries were grievous and there were no intervening circumstances to frame charges under Section 307 of the Indian Penal 2 Code ordinarily be the criteria for the Court to consider that no offence is made out under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Although I agree that meticulous examination of evidence is not required at this stage, nevertheless Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code has to be tried by the Sessions Court and, therefore, is it important to consider whether in fact prima facie there is an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. This can only be done by considering the intention of the parties, the manner in which the occurrence has taken place, the injuries inflicted and the weapons used. The Court must keep in mind all the facts before holding that the case is triable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. I, therefore, remand the matter back to the Special Judge to reconsider the application under Section 228 within a period of three months if he has not framed charges as yet. In case the charges are framed, this application is dismissed. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Counsel for the petitioners is directed to deposit the cost of FAX by 13th of April, 2010 failing which this application shall stand dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)