Dismissed

Ram Prasad Mahto And Ors. v. State of Jhakrhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC18 May 2023Cr.M.P./62/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking quashing of orders committing a case for trial under section 307 IPC, holding no sufficient ground was shown for calling the second revision an injustice under section 482 Cr.P.C., and the lower court was justified in the commitment based on medical evidence of injuries.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing dismissed; lower court to proceed.

Ram Prasad Mahto And Ors. Vs State of Jhakrhand… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

Cr.M.P. No. 62 of 2011

¶4

----

¶5

Ram Prasad Mahto and Others .... Petitioners

¶6

-- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶9

For the Petitioners :- Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. S.K. Srivastava, Advocate For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mrs. Ratna Prabha, Advocate ----

¶10

15 /18.05.2023 Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. S.K. Srivastava, the learned State counsel and Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2.

¶11

This petition has been filed for quashing of Order dated 30.08.2010 passed by learned 1^st Addl.Sessions Judge, Giridih in Criminal Revision No.60 of 2009 whereby revision criminal revision filed by the petitioners for setting aside order dated 2.05.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in Bagodar P.S.Case No.299 of 2004, T.R.Case No.93 of 2009 has been dismissed.

¶12

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has earlier taken cognizance under section 307 IPC and other sections of IPC. Since section 307 was there, the learned court has committed the case to the learned court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge has found that section 307 IPC is not made out, he has sent back the matter to the learned magistrate to proceed with the trial. He submits that in course of hearing a petition was filed by the informant and thereafter the learned court invoking power under section 323 Cr.PC has again committed the case under section 307 IPC sent to the learned Sessions Judge. The said order was challenged in the revisional court which was dismissed. He

¶13

¶14

submits that these orders are bad in law and to buttress his argument, he relied in the case of “P. Kartikalakshmni v. Sri Ganesh and Another” reported in (2017) 3 SCC 347. On this ground, he submits that the said order may kindly be set aside.

¶15

On the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 submits that there is more than seven injuries and in that view of the matter, both the order are correct and the learned court has rightly exercised power under section 323 Cr.P.C and affirmed the order by the learned revisional court.

¶16

Mr. Srivastava, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State has supported the orders passed by the learned court and submits that in the matter the order has rightly been passed. 6. In view of the above submission of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the Court has gone through the order dated 2.5.2009 and finds that the learned court has appreciated that Jai Prakash Verma, Binod Kumar and Shyam Lal Mahto deposed that accused persons assaulted the injured persons to kill and caused various injury by sword, tangi and lathi and that has been corroborated by the doctor PW4 and he has found one incised wound on the scalp of Shyamlal Mahto and even incised wound caused by sword on various part of body of Jai Prakash Verma and one lacerated wound on the scalp of Binod Kumar and finally the learned court has committed the case under section 307 of the IPC. If such a evidence has come in the trial, the learned court was justified in passing such order. For justifying conviction under section 307 I.P.C it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act foreboding death. It is sufficient in law if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in-execution thereof, such act being proximate to the crime intended and if the attempt has gone so

¶17

¶18

far that would have been complete but for the extraneous intervention which frustrated its consummation. There are different stages in a crime. First, the intention to commit it; second, the preparation to commit it; and third, an attempt to commit it. If at the third stage, the attempt fails, the crime is not complete but the law punishes for attempting the same. An attempt to commit crime must be distinguished from an intent to commit it or preparation of its commission. In this regard reference may be made to “State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kanha” reported in AIR 2019 SC 713. In the case in hand, there are injuries which have been found also supported by one none other than doctor-PW 4 and in this scenario the learned court has rightly passed the order which has been affirmed by the learned revisional court.

¶19

It is well settled that if no injustice is done under the garb of section 482 Cr.P.C the second revision is not maintainable.

¶20

Accordingly, Cr.M.P. No.62 of 2011 is dismissed.

¶21

The learned court may proceed in accordance with law.

¶22

Pending petition, if any, also stands dismissed accordingly.

¶23

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶24

SI/,

Ram Prasad Mahto And Ors. v. State of Jhakrhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Prasad Mahto And Ors. v. State of Jhakrhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Kumar Singh K.K.Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Heera Chaudhary And Ors. Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Vijay Kumar Jain Alias Patni Vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Bajrang Lal Choudhary And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Bhim Chandra Dutta And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Suresh Kumar Paswan And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Krishna Kumar Singh  K.K.Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Heera Chaudhary And Ors. Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Vijay Kumar Jain Alias Patni Vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Bajrang Lal Choudhary And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Bhim Chandra Dutta And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Suresh Kumar Paswan And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Krishna Kumar Singh K.K.Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.