IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that for a charge under Section 307 IPC to be sustained, there must be clear evidence of intent to kill, which was not present in this case due to the nature of injuries and the circumstances of the altercation.

ORDER :

Sanjay Prasad, J.

This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, namely Mahavir Mahto, Mahendra Mahto and Rajesh Mandal @ Rajesh Prasad, challenging the order dated 08.05.2019 passed in S.T. No. 328 of 2018, by Shri Kaushal Kishore Jha, learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Hazaribagh by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the discharge petition filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Initially five petitioners had filed this Criminal Revision Application. Later on, Original Petitioner No. 3, namely Nand Kishore Mahto @ Nand Kishore Prasad and Original Petitioner No. 5, namely Chotu Prasad had withdrawn the revision applications on their behalf on 16.02.2023. The name of Original Petitioner No. 3 and Original Petitioner No. 5 had been deleted on 22.02.2023 as the learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission to delete their names on 16.02.2023.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant had gone to attend the Panchayati on 05.6.2010 at Village Karwa and he along with his brother Arjun Sao and one Ful Chand Sao and nephew Santosh Kumar had attended the Panchayati, however, due to a conspiracy the accused Saman Thakur, Mukhiya Gopal Prasad, Ramchandra Prasad, Mahabir Mahto, i.e. Petitioner No. 1, Rajesh Mandal, i.e. Petitioner No. 3, Mahendra Mahto, i.e. Petitioner No. 2 and one Chait Lal Mahto and One Chotu Prasad, who were present earlier, got them engaged in talks and assaulted them by deadly weapons due to which his brother sustained head injury and his leg was broken. It is also alleged that the informant was assaulted by means of Iron Rod and Tangi by one Saman Thakur and Ramchander (against whom Final Form were submitted) and Rajesh Mandal, i.e. Petitioner No. 3.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel for the Informant.

5. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law.

It is submitted that the police, after investigation, has not found any material against three persons namely Samman Thakur, Gopal Prasad and Rajendra Prasad, hence final form was submitted against them although there were specific allegations against them also for assaulting the Informant and other injured persons. It is submitted that even as per F.I.R. there is no specific allegation against these accused persons for committing assault against the Informant and the specific allegation of assault by iron rod and axe upon the informant was against Sammon Thakur, Ramchandra Mahto and only one of the petitioners Rajesh Mandal, i.e. the Petitioner No. 4. It is submitted that the allegations are vague and general in nature and there was no intention whatsoever to kill the informant or his family members as the petitioner were having sufficient opportunity to kill the informant side. It is submitted that the injuries were not found on the vital part of the body of the informant and others, which is evident from the injury reports. It is submitted that there is no allegation of repetition of using the deadly weapons by the accused persons. It is submitted that in the above facts, no offence Under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners and there was no material for framing charge under Section 307 I.P.C. against the petitioners. It is submitted that in course of investigation sufficient materials were not collected as against the petitioners on the basis of which charges could have been framed. It is submitted that no specific overt act has been assigned as against the petitioners for assaulting the Informant & injured persons. It is submitted that save and except the interested witnesses of the informant being police personnel, none of the independent witnesses have stated anything against these petitioners. It is submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioners in the F.I.R. are fa