2025:JHHC:16399 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 939 of 2024 Birendra Singh Yadav @ Birendra Yadav, age about 63 years, son of Late Sahdev Singh, resident of House No.33, Sopondera, Near Shiv Mandir, P.O. Sarjamda, P.S. Parsudih, Dist-East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand …… Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Umesh Singh, age about 50 years 3.Raj Ballave Singh @ Raj Ballabh Singh @ Bharat Singh, age about 49 years Opposite Part no.2 and 3 are son of Chhabilal Singh, resident of Sopondera, Near Shiv Mandir, P.O. Sarjamda, P.S. Parsudih, Dist- East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand ……. Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, APP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate ----------- 06/Dated:20th June, 2025 This Criminal Revision has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.05.2024 passed by Sri Anil Kumar Mishra No.1, learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in S.T. Case No.379 of 2022, in connection with Parsudih P.S. Case No.108 of 2020 by which the matter has been remanded back to the learned Court of Sri Numan Khan Azam, J.M. 1st Class, Jamshedpur by observing that the ingredients of Sections 326, 342 and 307 is not attracted. 2. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sardhu Mahto, learned APP for the State and Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the learned 2025:JHHC:16399 2 Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the informant has instituted the case under Sections 323/324/341/342/307/504/506/34 of the IPC and even the police has submitted charge sheet under Sections 323/324/326/341/342/307/504/506/34 against the accused persons and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions. However, while deciding the discharge petition filed by the petitioner, the Court below has wrongly observed that the injury was not on the vital part of the body of the injured and there is also land dispute. It has been submitted that the injury report issued by T.M.H shows that two grievous injury were found on the head of the injured person namely Shailendra Kumar and hence the impugned order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the learned Court below may be set aside and the Criminal Revision Application may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned APP has submitted that the necessary order may be passed and it has been submitted that the police has also found grievous injury on the person of the injured person. 5. Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court is fit and proper and no interference is required. It is further submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Sessions Judge as the Sessions Judge has correctly found that there is no injury on the vital part of the body. It has been submitted that the injury report has been issued by the Private Hospital. It has been further submitted that the informant has got remedy by filing petition under Section 323 Cr.P.C or he may also file petition under section 319 Cr.P.C at the stage of the evidence during trial before the learned Court below and 2025:JHHC:16399 3 hence there is no merit in this case and the Criminal Revision Application may be dismissed. 6. Perused the records of this case and considered the submissions of both the sides. 7. It appears that the informant namely Birendra Yadav has instituted F.I.R on 03.07.2020 giving rise to Parsudih P.S. Case No.108 of 2020 against the accused persons under Sections 323/324/341/342/307/504/506/34 of the IPC. 8. It appears that the police had submitted charge sheet under Sections 323/324/326/341/342/307/504/506/34 against the accused persons. 9. It appears that the accused persons i.e. O.P. Nos.2 and 3 had filed discharge petition under section 227 of Cr.P.C and had taken the plea that the injury was not found on the vital part of the body and there is land dispute. 10. It appears that the following injuries were found on the injured person namely, Shailender Kumar (i.e. brother of the petitioner) which are as follows:- “(i) Sharp cut injury 5” x 1/4” x 1/4” over Fronto Parietal to Occipital region (ii) Sharp cut injury 1/2” x 1/4” x 1/4” on Left Tibial Sin (iii) Sharp cut injury 1” x ¼” x ¼” on Left Ankel Lateral aspect (iv) Contusion nondisplaced Unicortical Fracture of the Lt. Frontals Bone (v) Contusion Fracture cortical Breech on Left Distal 3rd of Fibula.” All the injuries are grievous in nature. 11. It appears that two grievous injuries were found on the head of the petitioner but the same has not been considered by the learned Court below. 12. It appears that apart from the informant even the witnesses namely, Narendra Kumar, Manoj Choubey and Laxmi Bhumiz, 2025:JHHC:16399 4 whose statements have been recorded in the case diary by the I.O, have supported the occurrence and para-71 is the injury report mentioned in the case diary. 13. The above injury report dated 03.07.2020 was issued by T.M.H, Jamshedpur. 14. Accordingly, the order dated 30.05.2024 passed by Sri Anil Kumar Mishra No.1, learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in S.T. Case No.379 of 2022, in connection with Parsudih P.S. Case No.108 of 2020 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Court below to pass order afresh, in accordance with law. 15. Thus, this Cr. Rev. No.939 of 2024 stands disposed of with the above observation. 16. The Trial Court is directed to send the record before the learned Sessions Judge at once. 17. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below at once by the Office. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Saket/-