CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Ramu vs State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 4 February 2013 · Citation: (2013) 1 ACR 815

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.C. Agarwal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 216 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302, 304
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 258 of 2013
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 340 words

S.C. Agarwal, J.—This criminal revision is directed against the orders dated 14.12.2013 and 21.1.2013 passed by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Gautam Buddh Nagar in S.T. No. 383 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No. 140 of 2012, P.S. Rabupura, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, whereby the application u/s 216, Cr. P.C. moved by the accused-revisionist--Ramu for alteration of the charge was rejected. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State.

There is no need to issue notice to opposite party No. 2.

2.

Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements of the witnesses are deemed to be correct, it is a case of sudden quarrel and the offence would not travel beyond Section 304, I.P.C. and the trial court committed illegality in framing the charge u/s 302, I.P.C. and should have allowed the application for alteration of the charge.

3.

Learned A.G.A. supported the impugned order.

4.

According to the F.I.R., on 25.5.2012 at about 8:30 p.m. the revisionist met the deceased Rameshwar Singh and asked him about one Pooja. When Rameshwar expressed his ignorance, the revisionist fired at Rameshwar from a country made pistol causing his death. From a perusal of the F.I.R., a prima facie case u/s 302, I.P.C. is made out though in the statements of the witnesses, it has come that there was some altercation between the revisionist and the deceased. The question of deciding as to whether offence falls u/s 302, I.P.C. or u/s 304, I.P.C. shall arise only after the trial court comes to the conclusion that death of Rameshwar was caused by the revisionist. At this stage, when the charge-sheet has been filed in respect of the offence u/s 302, I.P.C., no sufficient ground exists for alteration of the charge from Section 302, I.P.C. to Section 304, I.P.C. At this stage, the impugned order does not call for any interference and does not suffer from any illegality. The revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.