2025:JHHC:20916 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 908 of 2022 ----- 1. Sanddep Yadav, S/o Baliraj Yadav 2. Kamlesh Yadav, S/o Jagan Yadav, Both are R/o Village-Sobhanpur Bhatta, P.O. & P.S.-Muffasil, Dist.-Sahibganj 3. Sonu Yadav, S/o Rajendra Yadav @ Tuni Yadav 4. Monu Yadav, S/o Rajendra Yadav @ Tuni Yadav, Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 both are R/o Majahartola, P.O. & P.S.-Borio(J), Dist.-Sahibganj … …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mintu Kumar, S/o Balram Yadav, R/o Village-Sobhanpur Bhatta, P.O. & P.S.-Muffassil, Dist.-Sahibganj … …. Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mrs. J.K. Mazumdar, Advocate Ms. Neharika Mazumdar, Advocate ----- Oral Order 07 / Dated : 29.07.2025 1. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 27.07.2022 passed in G.R. Case No. 387 of 2017 (S.T. No. 152 of 2018), whereby and whereunder the discharge petition has been rejected as the Trial Court has found that the prima facie case was made out under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325, 307 and 34 of the I.P.C. 2. The order has been impugned on the ground that there is a case and counter case between both sides relating to land dispute and both the parties are agnates. It is further submitted that no independent witness has been examined during course of trial and since there is no injury on the vital part of the body, therefore offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C will not be made out. 3. Learned counsel for the State, assisted by learned counsel for O.P. No.2, have submitted that by forming of an unlawful assembly, altogether nine persons variously armed with deadly weapons had assaulted the informant. The father of the informant was injured by a sharp cutting weapon, as a result of which, two fingers were partially severed from the hands. 2025:JHHC:20916 2 4. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, law is settled that at the time of framing of charge, the defence cannot be closely scrutinized. Therefore, pendency of a counter case filed by the petitioner will have no bearing on the present plea of discharge taken by the petitioners. 5. So far as charge under Section 307 of I.P.C is concerned, lower court record has been produced by the learned counsel for the State from which it appears that grievous injuries were sustained by Balram Yadav on his hand and simple injury over his head. Gabbar Yadav, Dara Yadav and wife of Balram Yadav have sustained simple injuries. Although, nine persons are said to be the assailants, but not a single grievous injury has been inflicted on the vital parts on the body of any of the injured. From this, it appears that accused persons were not actuated by any intention to cause death, which is vital ingredient to bring the offence within the mischief of Section 307 of I.P.C. However, there are sufficient materials for framing of charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. With this modification in the order, this criminal revision petition stands dismissed. Pending, I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satayendra