HARADHAN MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the order dated 17.1.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dhanbad, in S.T. No.147 of 2012, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., has been rejected by the Court below.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It has been submitted that the in view of the allegations against the petitioner, the case is made out only under Section 304A of the IPC and not under Section 302 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that there is nothing in the post mortem report to show that the death of the deceased was caused due to the injection given by the petitioner.