RITLAL MARIK Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) th The 19 May, 2016 Challenge in this revision application is to the order dated 19.06.2013 passed by learned 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 18 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioners for their discharge under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code'), has been rejected.

(2.) Bereft of the unnecessary details, the facts, which are relevant for the proper adjudication of the issue involved in this case, in short, is that on the basis of the written report of the informant -Chintamani Manjhi, Mohanpur P.S. Case no. 236 of 2010 was instituted under Sections 341/323/504/506/379/34 of I.P.C. with the allegation that on 16.09.2010 at about 9.00 p.m., the accused persons namely Narain Marik, Prakash Marik , Jhagru Marik and Pitamber Marik entered into the house of his daughter -in -law - Bina Devi in drunken stage and started abusing her. On protest, accused Narain Marik and Pitambar Mahto caught hold Praveen Manjhi the grandson of the informant and assaulted him and when Bina Devi resisted, they assaulted her also. On raising alarm, when the informant came to their rescue with his family members, the accused persons abused them also and accused Ritlal Marik, Sukhdeo Marik, and Dhaneshwar Mahto, who were armed with lathi, assaulted them as a result of which the informant received injury on his head, his son Naresh Manjhi sustained injury in his elbow, daughter -in -law and his grandson received injury on their head. It is further alleged that the accused persons snatched away some ornaments, clothes and also Rs.10,000/ -cash from the possession of his daughter -in -law.

(3.) The police after investigation, submitted the charge -sheet against the petitioners under the different provisions including Section 307 of I.P.C. After commitment of the case, a petition for discharge under Section 228(i)(a) of the Code was filed by the petitioners, but the court below after hearing the parties rejected their prayer by order impugned dated 19.06.2013. Hence, this revision.