GAUTAM MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short as Code) has been filed for quashing the order 23.2.2006 passed by Sri Brahma Nand Prasad, Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Court, Munger in Session Trial No. 871/2005 whereby and whereunder the petition filed u/s 227. of the Code by the petitioners was rejected.

(2.) THE prosecution case in short is that when informant was not present in the house the petitioners came and en -* quired about the informant from his daughter, aged about 7 years. His daughter replied that informant had gone to market. It is alleged that petitioners and his associates caught hold the informant 'sdaughter and hurled Garasa on her hand as a result of which thumb and index finger of her left hand were cut. There was complete amputation of thumb. On hearing alarm of informant 'sdaughter some neighbors arrived and saved her. On the basis of statement of informant the police registered Muffasil PS Case No. 112/2005 and after investigation submitted charge -sheet. On the basis of which cognizance was taken u/ss. 458, 342, 326. and 307/34 of the Penal Code. The case was later on committed to the Court of Session where a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioners u/s 227 of the Code to discharge them from the case on the ground that on the basis of allegations no case against them is made out. The matter was heard and by the impugned order dated 23.2.2006 the same was rejected. Against the said rejection the petitioners have preferred the present application for quashing before this court. It has been argued that on the basis of materials available on the record no case against the petitioners is made out. In this conection learned counsel pointed out that the victim was treated by Dr. Indradeo Ram but the injury report was prepared by Dr. A.K. Singh. He then pointed out that at the time of alleged occurrence both the petitioners were present at a different place. He also pointed out that nobody had seen the alleged occurrence and not a single drop of blood was found at the place of occurrence.

(3.) ON the other hand learned APP supported the impugned order.