MAHADEO SUNDI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Cr. Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 16.07.2009, passed by the Sessions Judge, Koderma in Sessions Trial No. 24 of 2009 by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for transfer of the case record to the C.J.M., Koderma was rejected as the alleged offence, accordingly to the learned Counsel was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.

(2.) The prosecution story in short was that while the wife of the informant was washing her mouth and the waste was falling on the land, the accused persons strongly objected her conduct to which there held altercation amongst both the parties. It was specifically alleged that all the accused persons forming unlawful assembly variously armed with deadly weapons smashed the roof, door and windows of the house of the informant. It was further alleged that the petitioner Mahadeo Sundi carried sword in his hand, Pawan Prasad Mandal and Lakshman Sundi were holding spear and the other accused persons with different weapons broke the roof, door and windows of the house of the informant. It was specifically attributed against Mahadeo Sundi that he dealt sword blow to which the informant while trying to ward off sustained cut injuries at three places in his left arm and he fell down. Meanwhile, it was alleged that one Pawan Prasad Mandal climbed over his chest and inflicted knife blow thereby causing bleeding injury. On alarm, the witnesses arrived and removed the victims to the police station. It was further alleged against the accused persons that they took away household articles worth Rs. 15/20 thousand and the father of the informant had also sustained blows from the sticks dealt by the accused persons.

(3.) Learned Counsel Mr. Shikarwar submitted that at no stretch of imagination the offence can be attracted under Section 307 I.P.C. as there was no intervening circumstances to prevent the assailants who were allegedly armed with deadly weapon like sword, iron rods, daggers and spear etc. if at all they had intention to commit murder. According to the statement of the informant, all the witnesses were working at the relevant time and they arrived at the scene only on hearing "Hulla" and by that time, the informant and other victims had also sustained injuries. The entire occurrence took place on the spur of moment without pre-meditation and on the provocation made by the wife of the informant, who was washing her mouth on the disputed land and there had been no intention of the accused persons to commit murder. There was none to prevent them and therefore in the facts and circumstances the offence under Section 307 was not attracted against any of the accused.