ASHUTOSH JHA @ BODHAN JHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 19.02.2011 passed by the District and Sessions Judge -cum -Special Judge, Godda in Special Case no. 09 of 2009, whereby he rejected the application of the petitioners filed under section 228 of the Cr.P.C. and hold that prima facie offence against the petitioners made out under sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(V) of the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe ( Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989. Accordingly, the learned court below framed charges against the petitioners under the aforesaid sections.

(2.) It is submitted by Sri Jai Prakash Jha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the learned court below has committed serious illegality, as it had not considered the documents filed by the petitioners along with the petition under section 228 of the Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the aforesaid documents show that the informant is not in possession of the land in question. Under the said circumstance, petitioners had committed no offence, thus, are entitled to be discharged.

(3.) Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, learned Addl. P.P. and Sri Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 had opposed the above submissions and submitted that in view of the three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi" reported in AIR 2005(SC) -359, there is no illegality in the impugned order. Learned counsel further submitted that the injuries of the injured, referred in the impugned order, shows that the informant had received injuries on his head, which is a vital part of the body. It is further submitted that there is direct allegation against petitioner no.1 that he assaulted the informant with Farsa on his head. Thus, the injury report corroborates the allegation made in the FIR. Since, petitioner no.1 had used Farsa ( a lethal weapon) for assaulting the informant on the head ( vital part of the body), therefore, offence under section 307 of the I.P.C. made out. It is submitted that since petitioner has interfered with the right of enjoyment of the informant over the land in question, thus, offence punishable under section 3(1)(V) of the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe ( Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, made out.