SATENDRA SINGH @ SATYENDRA SINGH, SON OF SHRI SHYAMDEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SISWAN, P.S. & DISTRICT NAWADAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/accused is aggrieved by an order dated 16.06.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Nawada in Complaint Case No.456 of 2006 leading to Special (H) Case No.11 of 2008 whereby and where under petition filed under Sec. 227 of the Crimial P.C. has been rejected.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, Opposite Party No.2/complainant, Rajo Paswan had filed Complaint Petition No.456 of 2006 against four named accused persons including the petitioner along with 20-25 unknown persons for an occurrence allegedly committed by them on 24.06.2006 at about 7.00 p.m. and for that, the complainant narrated that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, while the complainant was at his house along with his family members, all the accused persons so named, unnamed armed variously made house trespass, abused and on an order of accused Krishmani Kumari, Satyendra Singh shot at complainant which he missed. Then thereafter, Satyendra Singh made second firing causing injury over buttock of Nilam Kumari, his daughter. Wife of complainant as well as witnesses rushed in her rescue whereupon Krishmani Kumari threw wife of complainant on the ground and assaulted her with fists and slaps. During said course, she also abused by calling her caste. They have ransacked the house, damaged the property. Then thereafter, the complainant took his daughter Nilam Kumari to Sadar Hospital, Nawada. During course of treatment, the police officials came, but they never enquired either from his or from his daughter. It has also been disclosed that neither the statement of complainant nor statement of daughter of complainant namely Nilam Kumari was recorded by the police.

(3.) The aforesaid complaint petition was transferred to the Court of Magistrate under Sec. 192(2) of the Crimial P.C. for holding an enquiry under Sec. 202 of the Crimial P.C. and during course thereof, witnesses were examined and then, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 148, 452, 323, 427, 380 I.P.C. and Sec. 3(X) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as well as under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act. After appearance of the accused, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where after appearance of the accused, a petition under Sec. 227 of the Crimial P.C. was filed on behalf of petitioner which, by the order impugned been rejected, hence this petition.