Uttarakhand High Court
C482/1563/2023 on 7 August, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
Sl.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C482 No.1563 of 2023
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Manav Sharma, Advocate, for the
applicant.
Mr. A.K. Shah, DAG, for the State of
Uttarakhand.
In order to answer the challenge given to the
impugned order dated 01.07.2023, by virtue of
which, the application preferred by the applicant
for framing of an additional charge under Section
302 of IPC has been rejected.
Some relevant dates are required to be
mentioned:-
1. 19.11.2016, an FIR was registered for
offence under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506
of IPC.
2. The matter was investigated and on
17.07.2017 charge sheet no. 236 of 2017
was submitted.
3. The matter was committed and the trial has
commenced. One of the injured persons, Mr.
Parvinder Singh, who was said to have been
an injured in the incident which was said to
have chanced on 15.11.2016, he later met
with the sad demise on 08.12.2016.
It is important to observe, at this stage itself,
that after the death of Parvinder had taken place on
08.12.2016;
a. That there was no information imparted to
the competent police authorities or the
Court about the sad demise of Parvinder.
b. That no post mortem was ever conducted of
Parvinder. Not even that, the charge in
relation to the trial was framed as back as
on 16.01.2018. That continued to progress
till the application Paper No.-60kha was
filed by the applicant only on 04.02.2023
seeking an alteration of a charge by addition
of an offence under Section 302 of IPC. The
same was objected and it has been rejected
by the impugned order dated 01.07.2023.
The prime reason, which has been assigned
by the Court of third Additional Sessions Judge,
Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, is that a
common logic is, if the victim, who had met with
the sad demise later on if it was on account of the
injuries which was suffered in the incident which
had chanced on 15.11.2016. It was quite obvious
that the information of the sad demise of Parvinder
was required to be imparted by the applicant,
coupled with the fact that the post mortem was
also required to be conducted in order to correlate
the incident and the injuries and the cause of death.
Having not done so, at a much belated stage, filing
of an application on 04.03.2023, merely on the
ground that some of the statements of the
witnesses, as recorded before the trial court, has
attributed the death of Parvinder because of the
incident of 15.11.2016, cannot be exclusive reason
that even the statements of the witnesses, which
were recorded, were much prior in time.
Thus, this Court does not find any logic in
filing of belated application on 04.03.2023 for
addition of a charge in relation, the principle
charge which was already framed as back on
05.01.2018 and that too in the absence of there
being any post mortem conduct of the deceased
Parvinder.
Having heard the learned counsel for the
applicant and owing to the records and particularly
the observations made in the impugned order, I do
not find that it would be a fit case in which at this
belated stage this Court should exercise its
inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
The 482 Application lacks merit and the
same is, accordingly, dismissed.
An alternative plea has been raised by the
learned counsel for the applicant that in view of
the provisions contained under Section 216 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court has got
ample of powers to alter the charge at any time
before the judgment is pronounced.
The exclusive prerogative to alter a charge
under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, has been vested with the Court ceased
with the trial. The impugned order in itself would
be an answer to this question that the Court has
when rejected the application for framing of a
charge or alteration for charge that will amount to
be an exercise of powers under Section 216 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. Besides this, this plea
under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, would not be available, when it is on
the Court's wisdom which has been exercised for
alteration of charge, which has been rejected or
rather the same was solicited by the applicant
himself by filing of an application, which will not
be within the scope of Section 216 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
Thus C482 application, stands dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
07.08.2023
R.Bisht
