The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an Additional Sessions Judge's order rejecting a discharge application. The court held the impugned order was justified and required no interference.
Criminal Revision No. 23 of 2016 dismissed; no relief granted to petitioners.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 23 of 2016
1.Anil Kumar son of late Ashok Mahto 2.Bablu Gope son of Chotu Gope 3.Dilip Kumar son of Late Kishori Mahto all resident of village Nagwa, PO Nagwa, PS Sadar District Hazaribagh … … Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
For the Petitioners : Mr. H. K. Shikarwar, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
5/06.09.2016 I. A. No. 5799 of 2016:
Heard Mr. H. K. Shikarwar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. for the State.
This application has been preferred by the petitioners for condoning the delay of 260 days in filing this revision application.
Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 260 is hereby condoned.
I. A. No. 5799 of 2016 stands disposed of.
Cr. Revision No. 23 of 2016:
This application is directed against the order dated 11.02.2015 passed in S. T. No. 434 of 2014 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge IV, Hazaribagh by which the application preferred by the petitioners for their discharge has been rejected.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the FIR was instituted against the 9 named accused persons and several unnamed persons including the petitioner no. 3. It has further been submitted that no specific overt act has been alleged against the petitioners. He further submitted that the main accused – Jiten Kumar Mehta has already been exonerated by the police as police has submitted final form. He also submits that the allegation against the petitioners does not constitute any offence under Sections 307 & 379 of I.P.C.
-2-
Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. for the State supported the impugned order.
It appears from the impugned order dated 11.02.2015 that several witnesses in course of investigation has stated about the active participation of the petitioners along with other accused persons in brutally assaulting the informant. Said allegation do constitute an offence under Section 307 and 379 of I.P.C. which fact has properly been appreciated by the learned court below while refusing to dishcarge the petition for offences punishable under Sections 307 and 379 of the I.P.C.
In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated 11.02.2015 therefore containing justifiable reasons refusing to discharge the offences under Sections 307 & 379 of I.P.C. does not warrant interference by this Court and accordingly, there being no merit in this application, the same is hereby dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
R. Shekhar Cp 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether in view of the appreciation of evidence by the trial court, the discharge petition should be rejected.
Whether the allegations constitute offences under Sections 307 and 379 of the IPC warranting denial of discharge.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Anil Kumar
Bablu Gope
Dilip Kumar
The State of Jharkhand
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
