Saroj Kumar Singh @ Saroj Singh v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.24637 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -6 Year- 2012 Thana -NAWANGAR District- BUXAR ======================================================

1. Saroj Kumar Singh @ Saroj Singh S/O Tangri Singh Resident Of Village- Roopsagar, Police Station- Nawanagar, District- Buxar .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Satyendra Yadav S/O Lalmuni Yadav Resident Of Village- Budailla, Police Station- Nawanagar, District- Buxar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Gopesh Kumar (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 09-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP.

The petitioner has challenged order dated 30.04.2013 passed by learned Adhoc Additional Session Judge II, Buxar, whereby and whereunder the learned lower court rejected the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C.

As per written report, it is evident that the deceased was crushed by Swaraj Tractor belonging to one Manoj Mahto being driven by his driver and for that, initially, a case was registered under Sections 302 and 120(B) of the I.P.C. Later on, after concluding investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 279/304(A) of the I.P.C. However, differing

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24637 of 2013 (6) dt.09-05-2016 2/2 therefrom, the learned lower court took cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 304 of the I.P.C. and that happens to be reason behind presence of the instant session trial before the court of sessions.

While considering the prayer of the petitioner in terms of Section 228 of the Cr.P.C in consonance with the impugned order, it is evident therefrom that learned lower court has taken into consideration para-5, further statement of the informant along with paras-27, 28 and 29, however, failed to construe whether from those statements, the conduct of the petitioner really could attract applicability of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. That being so, the crux of applicability of Section 304 of the I.P.C. is found lacking. Furthermore, the opinion of the learned lower court should have based upon the materials having been collected as well as having presence on the record and not beyond that. That being so, order impugned is set aside. Petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the learned lower court for fresh appraisal in light of forgoing observations. (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) ajaypd./- U T