Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1957 (JHR)

Harsh Sondhi @ Harsh v. State of Jharkhand

2017-11-14

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. AK. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Keshri, learned AP.P. for the State as well as Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the informant. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 7.9.2017 passed in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 44/2016. corresponding to G.R. No. 888/2016 (S.T. No. 156/2017) by the haired Principal District & Sessions Judge. Hazaribag. whereby and where under the application preferred by the petitioner for discharge has been rejected. 3. It has been submitted by Mr. A.K. Kashyap learned senior counsel for the petitioner that no case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the First Information Report was initially instituted against unknown persons and only to falsely implicate the petitioner his name has been inserted in the fardbeyan which would be apparent from perusal of the fardbeyan itself. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that there was no. repetition of blow and the intervening circumstances would suggest that there was no intention on the part of the accused persons to commit the murder of the informant as considering the fact that at the time of the alleged assault there was no one in the vicinity to prevent such assault. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant was never admitted in RIMS and in fact he had obtained a C.T. Scan report from a private clinic and no reliance can be placed on the same. It has therefore been submitted that the learned trial Court has not considered the aforesaid and therefore the impugned order dated 7.9.2017 deserves to be set aside. 4. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar. learned senior counsel appearing for the informant on the other hand has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has submitted that in a premeditated and preplanned manner, the accused persons including the petitioner had committed assault on the head of the informant which resulted in injury on the right parietal bone which was fractured. Learned senior counsel further submits that the intention of the petitioner is evident from the fardbeyan itself as the same appear not to cause any injury to the informant but to do away with his life. Learned senior counsel further submits that the intention of the petitioner is evident from the fardbeyan itself as the same appear not to cause any injury to the informant but to do away with his life. It has been submitted that the impugned order dated 7.9.2017 is a detailed and reasoned order and the same is liable to be sustained. 5. It appears from perusal of the present application that Muffasil P.S. Case No. 44/2016 was instituted by the informant against the petitioner and others under Sections 147, 341, 323, 504 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged therein that when the informant on 25.3.2016 at about 09:15 p.m. was having Chowmin near the petrol pump of Demotand the petitioner and few others had come and started assaulting him with a rule and iron rod intending to commit his murder. 6. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet and after cognizance was taken discharge application was preferred by the petitioner which however was rejected by the learned trial Court on 3.8.2017. Being aggrieved by the rejection. of the discharge application the petitioner had preferred a revision before this Court being Cr. Revision No. 1153 of 2017 which was allowed on 28.8.2017 and the matter was remanded back to the learned trial Court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and by giving appropriate reasons in the said order. Pursuant to the said order the impugned order dated 7.9.2017 has been passed. 7. Although it has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the name of the petitioner has subsequently been inserted but from perusal of the fardbeyan name of the petitioner clearly figures and it cannot be construed at this point of time that it was inserted at the behest of the informant. So far as the injury which has been sustained by the informant is concerned the same was opined to be grievous injury as the right parietal bone chip of the informant was fractured. Although it has been submitted that the C.T. Scan was done in a private hospital but the injury report of the Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Hazaribag reveals that lacerated wound in the right parietal part of scalp was found stained with fresh blood. The report of the Medical Officer thus corroborates the C.T. Scan report of the informant. Although it has been submitted that the C.T. Scan was done in a private hospital but the injury report of the Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Hazaribag reveals that lacerated wound in the right parietal part of scalp was found stained with fresh blood. The report of the Medical Officer thus corroborates the C.T. Scan report of the informant. The First Information Report reveals that the petitioner and others were equipped with iron rods and rules and had come to the place of occurrence which is suggestive of the fact that they had an ill intention against the informant and the blow which had been given on the head of the informant could have caused death to the informant as it was on a vital part of the body. There was a premeditated and preconceived plan on the part of the petitioner and others to commit such offence. Thus the act of the petitioner and the injury suffered by the informant does indicate a case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code in existence apart from other sections of the Indian Penal Code and therefore the learned trial Court having• rightly considered these aspects of the matter while passing the impugned order dated 7.9.2017, I am not inclined to entertain this application, which is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. However, this finding shall not prejudice the learned trial Court at the time of the trial. Application dismissed.