IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29517 of 2008 1. Rajesh Kumar Singh @ Munna Singh, son of Anand Bihari Singh 2. Anand Bihari Singh son of late Ramji Singh 3. Uday Pratap Singh son of Radhika Singh All are R/o vill. Ram Chaura, P.S. Ishuapur, Dist. Saran at Chapra. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The state of Bihar 2. Vinod Kumar Singh, son of Late Vishwanath Singh, resident of village- Ram Chaura, P.S. Ishuapur, Dist. Saran at Chapra. --Opp.Parties. ----------- 04 23.07.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioners are aggrieved by rejection of their application filed under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned trial court rejected said application by order dated 04.06.2008 in sessions Trial no. 162 of 2003 (State vrs. Ramjee Singh & ors). The prosecution case is that accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and armed with various weapons like sword, farsa etc. assaulted the prosecution side in which as many as three persons received injuries. One Ramji Singh is said to have assaulted the informant by means of dagger in the ‘panjara’ causing injuries. When the father of the informant tried to intervene petitioner no.2 is said to have assaulted him by means of farsa on head. The allegation thereafter is that petitioner nos.1 and 3 assaulted the father of the informant with the wooden part of farsa. Uncle of the informant came to intervene, the allegation is that petitioner nos. 2 and 3 assaulted him also by means of farsa on head. Doctor has found injuries on their persons. One of such injuries was found on the temporal/parietal region. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the impugned order submits that no adequate reasons has been assigned by learned trial Court in the order which renders the same unsustainable in law. He relies on a judgment rendered in 2008(1) PLJR 735. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 (informant) placed on record the counter affidavit and supported the impugned order. It is submitted that a bare perusal of the F.I.R. would show that they had common intention and assault were inflicted on several persons of the prosecution side with dangerous weapons. Learned counsel highlighted that three persons have received injuries at the hands of the petitioners some of which were found on vital parts like head/parietal region. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record including the impugned order. Learned trial Court on a perusal of the injury report has found that the injury sustained by one of them was on temporal parietal region. After having noticed that trial Court has observed as under in the impugned order:- “…… As per decision of our Apex Court in State of Bihar Versus Ramesh Singh, the truth, veracity and effect of evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduced are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of the test proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 and 228 of Cr. P.C. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon the materials before court, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of factual ingredients constitute the offence alleging may justify the framing of charge against the accused in 3 respect of commission of that offence…...” In my view, learned trial court has taken a view which is supported by law. That by itself is a reason. There is no illegality in the order meriting interference. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)