Ram Bali and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

S.N. Saxena, J.—Heard the learned Counsel and also perused the impugned judgment and order dated 2nd February, 1996, whereby the Sessions Judge, Azamgarh allowed the revision application of the revisionist/complainant Awadhoo Kewat and directed the lower court, i.e., the Court of Magistrate to frame charge u/s 307 of the I.P.C. also against the accused persons, as the injury upon the victim was on the vital part of the body and his intestines had come out. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, was of the opinion that it was a fit case for trial u/s 307, I.P.C. also. Feeling aggrieved, the accused persons have come to this Court.

The police originally had submitted the charge-sheet u/s 307, I.P.C. also against the accused persons but with the change of the Investigating Officer, a supplementary report was submitted praying that Section 307 of the I.P.C. be dropped, as no case was made out under this provision of the I.P.C. The Magistrate accepted the supplementary report of the Investigating Officer and dropped the charge u/s 307 of the I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant Awadhoo Kewat had preferred the aforesaid revision application before the learned Sessions Judge.

It was evident from the narration of the facts that it was a case in which a charge u/s 307, I.P.C. should have been framed by the Magistrate against the accused persons but the Magistrate had wrongly dropped the same although the police originally had submitted the charge-sheet u/s 307 of the I.P.C. also. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, had rightly decided the revision application and there was no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist/applicant that the order of the learned Sessions Judge suffered from any illegality requiring interference by this Court. The mere fact that the statements of a few witnesses had been recorded by the Magistrate was not sufficient to allow continuance of a very serious kind of miscarriage of justice. It may be mentioned that after the addition of the charge u/s 307, I.P.C, the Magistrate shall have to commit the case to the Court of Session for trial. There was, thus, no question of prejudice to the accused persons as they shall be tried afresh by the Session''s Court.

A reference may be made to Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 also, which empowers the Court to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. The charge, thus, was added correctly and this revision-application being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.