UMESH YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short as Code) has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.10.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nawada in Cr. Revision No. 65 of 2005, by which he has set aside the order dated 22.6.2005 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada who after considering the materials collected in the case diary, discharged the petitioner Umesh Yadav in G.R. No. 889/04 corresponding to Nardiganj P.S. Case No. 38/04.

(2.) SHORTLY stated the prosecution case is that on 29.6.2004 at 5 AM while the informant Munni Yadav was cleaning land in front of his house,, all of a sudden the accused including the petitioner Umesh Yadav arrived hurling abuses and challenged the authority of the informant in cleaning the land. An altercation followed in course of which the petitioner Umesh Yadav took out Katta from his waist and fired a shot which hit in the right arms of informant 'sson Shanti Yadav who was assisting the informant in cleaning the land. Shanti Yadav fell down with bleeding injury. Thereafter Chhotelal Yadav hit the informant on his head by a brick and other two accused named Karu Yadav and Sakaldeo Yadav assaulted the members of informant 'sfamily by means of Lathi. The Police after investigation submitted final form showing Umesh Yadav as innocent. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate accordingly discharged Umesh Yadav and took cognizance against other F. I.R. named accused. Against the said order of cognizance dated 22.6.2005 the informant preferred Cr. Revision No. 65/05 before the learned Sessions Judge, Nawada who by order dated 27.10.2005 allowed the revision, set aside the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in respect of petitioner Umesh Yadav and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in the light of observation made in the order. Against the said order of learned Sessions Judge, petitioner has preferred the present application for quashing before this Court.

(3.) LEARNED A.P.P. on the other hand, supported the impugned order and submitted that no interference is required. He further submitted that the informant in his further statement before the Police again named the petitioner as the person who caused firearm injury to Shanti Devi. His 1/1/2013 Page 54 Suman Kumar Verma Versus Union Of India statement has been supported by witness Satendra Yadav and Vijay Kumar vide paragraphs 6 and 7. of the case diary. He also pointed out that the doctor has found firearm injury on the person of Shanti Yadav. He then referred to the statement of witness Mistri Manjhi as incorporated in paragraphs of the case diary and submitted that according to this witness also Shanti Yadav in the occurrence received fire arm injury. He lastly submitted that the burden of proving alibi always lies on the accused.