KRISHNA KUMAR @ MUNNA LAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present application has been preferred by the informant of Bhagalpur Kotwali (Tilkamanjhi) Police Station Case No. 93 of 2007 which gave rise to the Sessions Trial No. 665 of 2007 so as to challenging the correctness of the order dated 20.7.2007. By the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, discharged the accused of the case holding that no offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was made out and sent back the case to a Magistrate of the Ist Class at Bhagalpur for trying the same in the light of the provision of Section 228(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr PC).

(2.) THE prosecution case, in short, is that while the Bhabhi of the informant was closing the gate of her house, the accused entered inside it and assaulted her with fists. On being objected to it by the informant, the accused also assaulted him with brick and knife causing bleeding injury to his head. The accused also took away a gold chain of the Bhabhi of the informant. The police submitted charge -sheet under Sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code, as appears from Annexure -4 to the present application, and, accordingly, the case was committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing both the parties and perusing the case record and the case diary came to the conclusion that the manner of occurrence, the nature of the injury and the absence of intention on the part of the accused indicated that no offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was made out. The learned Judge held that the facts constituted offences under Sections 452, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code which were not exclusively triable by the Court of Session and, as such, exercising his powers under Section 228(1)(a) of the Cr PC sent back the record to Shri S.K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bhagalpur.

(3.) BY referring to the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in State of Bihar V/s. Ramesh Singh reported in AIR 1977 SC 2018. it was contended that at the beginning stage of the trial, the truth, veracity and effect of evidence which the prosecutor proposes are not to be meticulously judged, nor any weight is to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It was not obligatory for the Judge, to consider at that very stage, the defence or other materials in detail in a sensitive balance so as to finding out whether they were incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. It was contended that as held by the Supreme Court in the above case, if the materials raise strong suspicion against the accused about the commission of the offence then the Judge was obliged to frame charges.