Mon. Sep 21st, 2020

Geeta Devi & Anr vs State on 28 July, 2015

1 min read

1. The petitioners have filed the instant revision petition to

impugn order dated 29.3.2014 of learned Additional Sessions Judge

whereby the petitioners were charged for committing offence under

Section 307/34 IPC and 394 IPC. Status report is on record.

2. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the

petitioners opted to withdraw the revision petition qua charge under

Section 307 IPC. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor was fair enough

to admit that there was no material to proceed against the petitioner No.1

under Section 394 IPC.
3. On perusal of the statements of the victim and other

prosecution witnesses examined during investigation, I find that it is a

case under Section 307/34 IPC whereby injuries were inflicted in

furtherance of common intention by the petitioners on the vital organ of

the victim. Taking out `20,000/- from the pocket, as alleged by the victim

during the incident does not attract the ingredients of Section 394 IPC.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply