NISHANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this revision application is to the order dated 23.01.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge -II, Deoghar in S.C. No. 231 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner under Sections 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') has been rejected.

(2.) AT the instance of the informant Rajesh Prasad Raut, the present case was instituted bearing Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 214 of 2007 under Sections 341/323/307/324/34/115 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 25(1 -b)A/26/27 and 35 of Arms Act on the allegation that when this informant was working in his shop at about 3:30 P.M., five persons namely Manish Kumar @ Banty, Rinku Kumar, Nishant Singh (the present petitioner), Tapan Kumar Das and Anuj Kumar Verma @ Bholu were found sitting under a Banyan tree on a platform and one Ambassador Car was standing there. A neighbouring shopkeeper Sandeep Kumar Sinha was going to open his shop when one of the person Nishant Kumar sitting under the tree called him and took out his pistol and threatened Sandeep Kumar with dire consequence upon which Sandeep Kumar fled from there and again came with his brother Sudip but the accused persons assaulted them with fist and slaps and when this informant along with his brother Sudip Mistry and Kartik Raut went there for rescue, Nishikant Kumar fired from his country made pistol upon the informant with intention to kill him but the same caused injury over his right leg and Kartik Raut also sustained injury over his leg. On Hulla, when the local people started assembling there, four of the accused persons fled away in their Ambassador Car but one accused Manish @ Banty was caught on the spot. It is also alleged that the pistol of Nishikant Kumar fell down while he was fleeing away, which was collected by the informant and handed over to the police.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the findings of the court below submitted that the court below without applying his judicial mind rejected the petition for discharge. Learned counsel further submitted that no sanction was taken under Arms Act and no ballistic report from Sergeant Major was obtained and there was absolutely no evidence in the case diary to constitute the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. Hence, the order impugned is fit to be set aside.