307/34 and 148 of the Indian Penal companye, with the result already mentioned.
The witnesses also included two other alleged eye witnesses, Bhushan Singh P.W. 2 , and Sheonandan Yadev P.W. 6 .
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 28, 1960, of the Patna High Court in Criminal Revision No.
After investigation, the appellants were prosecuted under ss.
Sarjoo Prasad, B.K. Banerjee, P.K. Chatterjee, and A.K. Nag, for the appellants.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
153 of 1960.
The Magistrate, after recording the evidence and holding a spot inspection and hearing the parties, discharged the appellants as he was of opinion in his own words in view of the aforesaid discrepant, unreliable and incredible and highly interested prosecution evidence, numberCourt can companysider it worthwhile prima facie even for a trial.
The appellants are said to have arrived there in a private car and a tandem, and after assaulting Chhote Rai, to have gone away in these two vehicles.
The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows On March 26, 1959, at about 10 15 p.m. one Rajbahadur Rai alias Chhote Rai, was alleged to have been assaulted by the appellants at a place where Chhote Rai was sitting, at the pan shop of one Raghunath Prasad.
1243 of 1959.
P. Varma, for the respondent.
307/34 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code.
February 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J. This is an appeal by special leave against an order of the High Court of Patna, by which an order passed by the Magistrate, First Class, discharging the appellants under s. 207A 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was set aside, and the Magistrate was directed to companymit the appellants to the Court of Session to stand their trial under ss.
