STATE OF BIHAR Vs. SANJAY RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 15.5.1996, passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa, in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 1994, by which he has discharged the accused -opposite parties at the stage of framing of the charges on the ground that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against them.

(2.) ONE Dropadi Devi, widow of deceased Baijnath Jha, lodged a fardbeyan on 16.4.1992 at 3 p.m. at Sadar Hospital, Saharsa, alleging, inter alia, that at 7 p.m. on the same date, she was preparing meal and her daughter -Sharda Kumari and son Ashish Kumar Jha were sitting in the court -yard. In the meantime, the deceased who was working as a Peon in the Saharsa College, came with certain house -hold articles. After handing over the said articles to his daughter, he asked for a meal as he was feeling hungry. In the meantime, two unknown young people came and they said that the deceased was called by Masraph. The deceased told that he was taking meal. Thereafter, one of the unknown persons caught hold of him and the other took out a pistol and fired causing injury to her husband, who fell down. The deceased uttered that the brother of Masraph had fired at him. She also stated in the fardbeyan that one Indu Bhushan Yadav had written a love letter to her daughter Guria. Said Indu Bhushan Yadav was the brother -in -law of Prof. Umesh Yadav and this fact was brought to the notice of the said Professor and the aforesaid boy was reprimanded by him.

(3.) ON the basis of the said fardbeyan, Saharsa PS. Case No. 209 of 1992. was registered against unknown. The Police proceeded with the investigation and after investigation, submitted charge -sheet against the accused -opposite parties. After cognizance and commitment, they were put on trial. At the stage of framing of the charges, it was said on their behalf that no case for proceeding against them was made out and, thereafter, the trial Court, by the impugned order, discharged the opposite parties from the said charges, which order has been challenged by the State in this case.