IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.976 of 2008 1. Poonam Devi, W/o-Sri Ram Kumar. 2. Shunaina Devi @ Sunna Devi, W/o-Late Haribans Rai. 3. Chandipiya Devi, W/o-Sri Amirak Rai. All are resident of village-Jaganpura, P.S.-Phulwarisharif, Distt.-Patna. - Petitioner/s(s) Versus The State of Bihar ………………Opposite .Party. Appearance : For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha Mr. S.K.Bhatnagar For the Respondent/s: Mr. Z. Hodd., A.P.P. 3 11-07-2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The accused petitioners have preferred this revision application against the order dated 1st July 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-V, Patna by which their prayer for discharge in connection with Phulwarisharif (Gopalpur O.P.) P.S. Case no. 680 of 2006 G.R. no. 4898 of 2006 under Sections 302, 307, 216 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act has been rejected in Sessions Trial no. 1456 of 2007. The prosecution case is that on 21st October 2006 at about 8-9 P.M. the informant Antara Devi was celebrating Deepawali along with her husband and 4 children. In the meantime, all of a sudden the accused persons including the petitioners armed with various weapons and 3/4 others entered into the house of the informant and they were asked by the co- accused Amirakh Rai to kill all the male, female and the children 2 of the house. Thereafter, there was firing upon the members of the family of the informant. Informant ran away and remained on the roof; the firing continued for half an hour. Later on she saw that her two sons, a daughter and her husband were lying in the pool of blood. The next son had hide himself under the palang as such his life could be saved. The informant informed the police. It was found that the husband, son and daughter Kiran were dead. Her son Amrendra was injured and he was taken to the hospital by the police. The reason for the occurrence is that the accused Amirakh Rai and his sons had demanded Rs. 200000/- as rangdari, which had not been paid by her husband and the accused had made altercation several times and 2 to 3 months ago her husband had given information in the Gopalpur outpost of the police against the accused. On the information given by the informant Phulwarisharif (Gopalpur) P.S. case no. 680 of 2008 was instituted under Sections 302, 307, 216/120B I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act. After investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the accused including the petitioner. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, later on, it was transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Patna, where an application dated 2-1-2008 was filed on behalf of the petitioners praying therein to discharge them which was dismissed by the impugned order. The main contention of the learned counsel for the 3 petitioners is that there is no specific allegation of overt act against the petitioners. The petitioners have named in the F.I.R. but according to F.I.R. itself, no allegation has been made against them to have committed any specific overt act. He has further contended that the injured Amrendra had made statement before the police at P.M.C.H., Patna and it should have been treated as the F.I.R. He has further submitted that the statement of Amrendra Kumar has been recorded in Paragraph 52 of the case diary. He has not named the petitioners as accused in this case. Witnesses Amit Kumar, Vinay Kumar and Jitendra Kumar have supported the prosecution case as hearsay witness and their statement are mentioned in Paragraphs 16 & 17 of the case diary. Amit Kumar is the witness, who has only supported the prosecution case against the petitioners but he has also not made any statement as to what was the overt act made by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the prosecution has submitted that there is sufficient material in the case diary to show that the petitioners have also participated in the occurrence. The informant Antara Devi, a witness Amit Kumar and Amrendra Kumar are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. The informant Antara Devi and the witness Amit Kumar have stated that the petitioners had also entered into the house of the informant. The co-accused had assaulted the inmates of the house of the informant and due to firing by the accused, the husband, son and a daughter of the informant died and the fourth -one Amrendra 4 Kumar was injured, who was taken by the police to the hospital after getting the information by the informant. The information was firstly given by the informant as such and on her statement the F.I.R. has rightly been lodged and it was her information which brought the police to the house of the informant. Thereafter, Amrendra Kumar was taken to the hospital (PMCH) Patna, by the police where statement has been recorded. He has further submitted that at the time of considering the petition under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr. P.C., the learned trial Court is not required to see as to whether the evidence would lead to the conviction of the accused or not at this stage. The learned Court is required only to see as to whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material on the record it appears that the informant as well as Amit Kumar and Amrendra Kumar are the inmates of the house of the informant. The other inmates have died due to the assault/attack made by the accused including the petitioner. The other victims of the occurrence died due to the attack by the accused. It has been held in case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh reported in 1997 Supreme Court 2018 that it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the 5 accused at the stage of Sections 226 and 228. The Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused. At the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion against the accused which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. A reference also be made to a decision Rana Ramdev Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in 2000(4) PLJR 405. It appears from the impugned order that the learned Magistrate has also gone through the case diary and has found sufficient material from the record to frame charge against the accused including the petitioners under Sections 450, 302, 149, 307, 386/34 and 148 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This revision application is accordingly dismissed. Kamlesh ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)