Allahabad High Court
Ranjit Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 May, 2023
Bench: Jyotsna Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?AFR
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:104219
Court No. - 93
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 564 of 2023
Revisionist :- Ranjit Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Lalit Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
1. Heard Sri Lalit Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State. None responds for respondent no. 2 despite service of notice.
2. By means of this criminal revision, a judgment and order dated 22.11.2022 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Mathura in S.C. No. 740 of 2022 (State vs. Jeetu @ Jitendra) arising out of Case Crime No. 57 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 304 part-1 IPC, Police Station Farah, District Mathura has been challenged.
3. The relevant facts are as below:-
An FIR naming Jeetu, Jagveer and certain others was filed by the first informant (the instant revisionist herein) alleging that his brother Manverndra was playing a match with the accused persons; during the match some altercation ensued between the two sides; the accused persons Jeetu and Jagveer attacked his brother Manvendra with a cricketing bat on his head and he later died of the injury sustained by him; the session trial began on the basis of a chargesheet admittedly filed under Sections 302, 323, 504 IPC; the learned session court framed a charge under Sections 302/34, 323/34 and 504 IPC, thereafter on the basis of an application moved on behalf of the accused persons that no offence under Section 302 IPC is made out and that the charge may be converted into one under Sections 323, 504 and 34 IPC, the learned session judge heard both the sides and came to the conclusion that prima facie offence under Section 323, 504, 304 part-1 IPC is made out and fixed the case for framing of charge under those sections only.
4. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist ( first informant) that in this case, the learned trial court took cognizance under Sections 323, 504 and 302 IPC and framed charge under those sections; Thereafter on the basis of a mere application moved on behalf of accused the learned session judge altered the charge from Section 302 to 304(1) IPC.
5. Certain facts have been pointed out by the revisionist which are part of the case diary; it is contended on the basis of the statements given by certain persons that the attack was done in a well planned manner and with premeditation, hence it cannot be said that there was no intention to cause death.
6. In my view when the court decided to take cognizance for the offence under Section 302 IPC and thereafter proceeded to frame a charge under Sections 302 IPC and several other sections, it may be presumed that the competent court has perused the evidence on record and has drawn a conclusion that prima facie such and such offences are made out; admittedly neither cognizance order nor the order of framing of charge was ever challenged by any of the side before the revisional court; The charge has been altered on the basis of a simple application moved by the defence side; In my firm view, the court is not permitted to sit in revision review or recall of its own order under the garb of provisions of Section 216 that charge can be altered at any stage of the case.
7. In my opinion, at this juncture, there is no need to go into the minute details of the allegations or the evidence recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and attending facts and circumstances of the case with regard to settle the instant controversy before this court. The moot point involved is whether the court can review or recall or set aside its own order.
8. I find substance in the contention that once charge has been framed, it shall be presumed that the learned trial court did so after going through all the evidence on record and drawing a conclusion that prima facie offence under certain sections is made out; Though the trial court has ample power to alter the charge on the basis of suitable material coming before it during the course of trial but without finding any change in circumstances or any material in between, the trial court can not re-appraise the evidence on record for drawing a different conclusion. Such a course of action is clearly not permissible by implication under the provisions of Section 362 of Cr.P.C. If such a course of action is permitted it shall create disorder and chaos in judicial proceedings and certainly shall be a cause for judicial indiscipline. It may also be noted that there may be certain good grounds for alteration of charge but the same may be considered at the proper stage after recording of evidence. In my view, the alteration of charge in this manner is not permissible in law. This may not be construed to mean that the trial court cannot exercise its powers to alter the charge for some good reason which may pop up at any subsequent stage, on the basis of any new material/evidence coming before it during the course of trial.
9. On the basis of above discussion the impugned order dated 22.11.2022 is hereby, set aside and the revision is allowed.
The learned trial court shall proceed with the case on the basis of earlier charge.
Order Date :- 15.5.2023
#Vikram/-
