KAMLESH MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Md. Sajid Yunus, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Nehru Mahto, learned A.P.P. for the State.

(2.) In this application, petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 18.02.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- IV, Chaibasa whereby and where-under charge has been framed against the petitioners under section 304(B)/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and in the alternative under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Sonua P.S. Case No. 5 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 64 of 2016.

(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in a mechanical manner charge has also framed under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned trial court without discussing any evidence which would suggest an offence having been committed under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that although in the case of Rajbir @ Raju and Another v. State of Haryana reported in (2010) 15 SCC 116 it was mandatory for the learned trial court to have framed charge in the alternative under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but the said principle was diluted in the case of Jasvinder Saini and Others v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2013) 7 SCC 256 and therefore the learned trial court cannot frame charge in a mechanical manner.