Patna High CourtCR. REV./563/2016dismissed

Mahendra Saw @ Mahendra Sahu v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-06-21Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.563 of 2016 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-161 Year-2013 Thana- SURYAGARHA District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Mahendra Saw @ Mahendra Sahu, S/O Late Basant Saw, Resident of Maulanagar, P.S. - Suryagarha (Manikpur), District - Lakhisarai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Rakesh Sao, Son of Raj Kumar Sao

3. Rajeev Sao, Son of Raj Kumar Sao

4. Raj Kumar Sao, Son of Late Ayodhya Sao

5. Rajendra Sao, Son of Late Ayodhya Sao

6. Prem Sao, Son of Late Ayodhya Sao

7. Amarjeet Sao, Son of Prem Sao

8. Swarnjeet Sao, Son of Prem Sao ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Surendra Kr. Singh, Advocate.

Ms. Tulika Singh, Advocate.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar (App) For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Amrit Abhijat, Advocate. Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, Advcoate.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 21-06-2018 Heard counsel for the parties.

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 07.04.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhisarai in Sessions Trial No. 125 of 2015 whereby the opposite parties no. 2 to 8 have been discharged of the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

The impugned order reveals that there was a minor scuffle over a bona fide land dispute leading to injuries on some of the persons which were found to be simple. The court below took note of the fact that there

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.563 of 2016(3) dt.21-06-2018 2/2 could not have been any intention of causing death of any one of the victims.

Considering the aforesaid facts the aforesaid order was passed.

This Court does not feel inclined to interfere with the aforesaid order discharging the opposite parties no. 2 to 8 for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

As such the petition is dismissed.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) krishna/- U T