IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.51777 of 2007 1. NARAYAN MEHTA, S/o late Mahgu Mehta 2. Gopal Mehta, S/o Narayan Mehta 3. Raj Kumar Mehta, S/o Narayan Mehta 4. Bijay Mehta @ Kumar Mehta, S/o Narayan Mehta 5. Sushil Mehta, S/o Deo Narayan Mehta 6. Sunil Mehta, S/o Deo Narayan Mehta 7. Anandi Mehta, late Botal Mehta 8. Ram Pavitra Mehta, S/o late Gopi Mehta 9. Ganesh Mehta, S/o Deo Narayan Mehta 10. Kameshwari Mehta, S/o late Sukkar Mehta 11. Prayag Sharma @ Abhishek Kumar, S/o Saryug Sharma 12. Narayan Sharma, S/o Saryug Sharm All R/o Vill. Sahuria, P.S. Jankinagar, Dist. Purnea. Versus 1. The STATE OF BIHAR 2. Ganga Devi, W/o Ram Kishore Choudhary, R/o Vill. Sahuria P.S. Jankinagar, Dist. Purnea ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Rambalak Mahto, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Ajay. For the O.P. : Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, Mr. Brajesh Kumar. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay. ------ 8/ 23.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. In the fateful night, two persons were killed each from both sides. Subsequently, two cases were registered. Firstly, Janki Nagar P.S. Case no.151 of 2002 and secondly, Janki Nagar P.S. Case no. 152 of 2002. In Janki Nagar P.S. Case no. 151 of 2002, wife of Ram Kishore lodged F.I.R. to the effect that while her husband, Satendra Singh and others were returning and reached near the house of Narayan Mahto surrounded by accused persons, including petitioners brutally assaulted her husband. After receiving injuries even on head, he fell down on the spot became unconscious and died also. Janki Nagar P.S. Case no. 152 of 2002 has been filed on behalf of the Raj Kumar Mehta with the story that the deceased and injured of P.S. Case no. 151 of 2002 entered the house of the 2 informant after searching the deceased and shot him dead. Thereafter, the villagers gathered chased and some injuries caused to deceased and informant’s husband of Janki Nagar P.S. Case no. 151 of 2002. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Janki Nagar P.S. Case no. 152 of 2002 tried and accused of the case were convicted leading thereby that the story set up by the prosecution of that case was true and prosecution story set up in Janki Nagar P.S. Case no. 151 of 2002 should be disbelieved. There could be some substance in the submission advanced by the learned counsel, but that was possible only if both the cases were tried by one and the same Court keeping both the cases side by side. Otherwise allegation is there, corroboration is also there and contradiction by some of the defence witnesses of Janki Nagar P.S. Case no. 152 of 2002. However, cognizance was taken under Section 307 and other allied sections of the I.P.C. That was challenged also but petitioner was not believed. So, here only question arises for framing of charges only under Section 304 and other allied sections of the I.P.C. or for framing of charges under Section 307 and other allied sections of the I.P.C., accompanied by under Section 302 of I.P.C. Only counter case is there, that resulted into conviction cannot be made a ground for not framing charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. also when both the Janki Nagar P.S. Case no. 151 and 152 were not tried together by keeping side by side. 3 Thus, I do not find merit in the application, the same is dismissed. shail (Mandhata Singh, J.)