Smt. Bhim Dassi vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3934 HP

                                                                         1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
                      SHIMLA




                                                    .
             ON THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021





                      BEFORE





          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

      CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482, Cr.PC
                No.698 of 2019



    BETWEEN:-
    1.    SMT. BHIM DASSI

          W/O SH. RAM KRISHAN

          R/O VILALGE TIHNI,
          P.O SHUSH, TEHSIL ANI


          DISTRICT KULLU, H.P AGED 47 YEARS




    2.    SH. RAM KRISHAN,





          S/O LATE SH.SHYAM DASS
          R/O VILLAGE TIHNI,





          P.O SHUSH, TEHSIL ANI,
          DISTRICT KULLU, H.P
                                   .... PETITIONERS

    (BY MR. ROMESH VERMA, ADVOCATE)
    AND
    1.    THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH




                                   ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:53:10 :::CIS
                                                                                 2




    2.    SMT. SUSHMA W/O SH. RAJINDER BHARDWAJ,
          R/O VILLAGE TIHNI, P.O SHUSH, TEHSIL ANI,




                                                           .
          DISTRICT KULLU, H.P





          AT PRESENT PRINCE GUEST HOUSE
          VPO ANI, TEHSIL ANI, DISTRICT KUULU, HP





                                    ..... RESPONDENTS

    (SHRI NAND LAL THAKUR, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE




    GENERAL,        SHRI      KUNAL       THAKUR,                DEPUTY
    ADVOCATE         GENERAL        AND      SHRI          RAM           LAL
    THAKUR, ASSISTANT ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R-1


    SHRI VIVEK SHARMA, ADVOCATE, FOR R-2)
    ___________________________________________________



             This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court




    passed the following:





                            JUDGMENT

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

93/2013 5.12.2013 Ani, Distt. Kullu 341, 323, 504 and 34, IPC

Challenging the alteration of charge by the learned Trial Court by adding Section 325, IPC and consequently framing an additional charge, the accused-petitioner has come up before this Court under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. A perusal of the order-sheet annexed with the petition reveals that initially the State had launched prosecution for

.

commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323,

504 read with Section 34, IPC. The charges were framed under these Sections and the trial commenced.

3. A perusal of the order dated 1.10.2018 reveals that the prosecution evidence was completed and even the statement of

accused under Section 313, Cr.PC was recorded wherein they declined to lead the defence evidence. After that, the matter

was adjourned on the request of the parties and also that a cross

case was pending and it was ordered that the said cross case be also tagged with the present case. Order dated 31.7.2019

reveals that the matter was heard in part by the learned JMFC, Anni, District Kullu.

4. On 29.8.2019, the learned Trial Court passed the following

order:-

"While perusing the case file for conclusion of the

arguments, it was observed that there is one documentary evidence issued by Dr. Ashish Kalra, Kalra Hospital Jalandher City, perusal of which shows that grievous injuries were also sustained by the victim and therefore, by invoking power under Section 216, Cr.P.C, a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons to frame additional charge against

them for commission of the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC. Accordingly,

.

charge framed against the accused persons for the

aforesaid offence, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Let the witness namely Dr. Ashish Kalra, M.D. be summoned from Kalra Hospital, Kapurthala Chowk,

Jalandhar City for 23.11.2019"

5. Consequent upon this order, learned Trial Court framed

additional charge for commission of offences punishable under

Section 325, IPC against the accused.

6. Aggrieved by the order passed under Section 216, Cr.PC

and additional charge framed for commission of offence punishable under Section 325, IPC, the petitioner came up

before this Court.

7. Initially the trial was going on in the Court of Judicial

Magistrate First Class for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 read with Section 34, IPC. With the alteration of charges, Section 325, IPC was added, which is also triable by any Magistrate of the First Class. Thus, the accused cannot be said to be prejudiced on the grounds that the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court had changed conferring jurisdiction to Higher Court depriving one ride of Criminal Revision Petition in case of a conviction. The

ground that the report issued by a private hospital cannot be considered at such a belated stage is ill-founded. A perusal of

.

Section 216, Cr.PC clearly reveals that a Trial Court may at any

stage before pronouncement of judgment can alter the charge. Learned counsel has relied upon the following judicial

precedents, however, the same are not applicable on the facts peculiar to this case:

(I) AIR 1954 SCC 266 (Para-9)

(2) 2013 (7) SCC 256 (Para-15)

(3) 2014 (3) SCC 92 (Para -58)

(4) 2017 (7) SCC 706 (Para 9 to 16)

(5) AIR 1943 Privy Council Page 192 (Page 195-g & h)

8. In the entirety of facts and circumstances peculiar to this

case, the petition is dismissed. Registry is directed to return the

records forthwith. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

(Anoop Chitkara) Judge 16.8.2021 (mamta).