IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1189 of 2008 1. Nitesh Kumar @ Chhotu Mahto S/o Late Tuntun Mahto 2. Niraj Kumar @ Niraj Mahto, S/o Tuntun Mahto 3. Rajendra Mahto, S/o Late Barhamdev Mahto 4. Goda Devi, W/o Late Barhamdev Mahto 5. Urmila Devi, W/o Rajendra Mahto 6. Santu Devi, W/o Ashok Mahto. All residents of Mohalla Pokharia, Police Station Town, District- Begusarai. 7. Lokhu Mahto, S/o Gopi Mahto 8. Madho Mahto, S/o Gopi Mahto 9. Manoj Mahto, S/o Raju Mahto 10. Tapo Mahto, S/o Gopi Mahto 11. Gopi Mahto, S/o Late Sanelal Mahto All resident of Mohalla Mungeriganj, Police Station Town, District-Begusarai. ………………..Petitioners. Versus STATE OF BIHAR …………. Opposite Party. For the petitioners : Sri Shiv Shankar Azad, Advocate. ----------- 2 23-06-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Petitioners are facing allegation constituting offence under diverse sections of the penal code including Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In relation to an occurrence taken place on 28-03-2006 a complaint was lodged on 5.4.2006. Ultimately at the instance of the victim, it appears, an F.I.R. bearing Begusarai Town P.S.Case No. 87 of 2006 was lodged. The matter was investigated and thereafter charge sheet was submitted. Cognizance of the offence was taken and subsequently the matter was committed to the court of sessions. The accused petitioners filed an application under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking their discharge from the case, which was considered and rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C.- 2 Vth, Begusarai vide its order dated 14-07-2008 passed in S.T. No. 234/2008. The said order has been impugned in the present proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present case was lodged in retaliation of a case lodged earlier by one of the accused persons of the present case which gave rise to Begusarai P.S. Case No. 87/06. It is next contended that the injury report produced in the present case was obtained from a private medical practitioner. It is next contended that the injuries allegedly sustained by the injured would not justify framing of charge under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned trial court considered the aforesaid submission and found otherwise in great detail. This is what the learned trial court has noted in paragraph-6 of the impugned order:- “From perusal of the case diary, it transpires that the complainant Upendra Mahton had supported his version in his re- statement. witnesses Bishwanath Mahton, Pappu Mahto, Sib Nandan Mahton, Sagar Mahton, Dilo Mahton, Indu Devi had also supported the fact that marpit took place on the aforesaid date. All the witnesses had also supported the fact that the testicles of Upendra Mahton was pressed by the Urmila Devi, the wife of the Rajendra Mahton. One injury was 3 found on the front of the head which is vital part of the body. Thus, it is clear that the injuries were found on the person of Upendra Mahton one on testicle and the other on the head which is the vital part of the body. The allegation of counter case has also been alleged by the defence. Thus, it is clear at this stage that there has been marpit on both sides. Since, there are injuries on the testicles as well as on the head and the aforesaid injuries are itself sufficient materials for framing of the charge u/s 307 Indian Penal Code.” This court is satisfied that no case for interference is made out. Trial court has taken a view, which could not be said to be wholly illegal and/or perverse. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. Sujit (Kishore K Mandal, J.)