Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 2541
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MANOJ BAJAJ, J.
Pavnesh Kumar Alias Rahul – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRR-1016-2018 (O & M)
Decided on : 01-07-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. M.K. Arya, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Harsimar Singh Sitta, AAG, Punjab.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for convincing material and the absence of prejudice to the accused when altering or amending a charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
alteration of charge - Criminal Law - Section 216 Cr.P.C. - [Section 216 Cr.P.C.] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 216 Cr.P.C. and emphasized the need for convincing material and the absence of prejudice to the accused when altering or amending a charge. The court highlighted the importance of recording satisfaction for altering the charge and the necessity of considering all important aspects of the case before making such a decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the alteration of a charge from abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC to culpable homicide amounting to murder under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution's application for the alteration was contested by the defense, arguing that the evidence presented was insufficient and that the trial was at an advanced stage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had not adequately considered the reply filed by the defense and had not taken into account the material and evidence presented, including a report containing reasons for the deletion of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to decide the application afresh by passing a reasoned order considering all important aspects of the case.
Issues: The issues involved the sufficiency of evidence for altering the charge, the consideration of material and evidence presented, and the potential prejudice to the accused in altering the charge at an advanced stage of the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for convincing material and the absence of prejudice to the accused when altering or amending a charge. It highlighted the importance of recording satisfaction for altering the charge and the necessity of considering all important aspects of the case before making such a decision.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to decide the application afresh by passing a reasoned order considering all the important aspects of the case.
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ BAJAJ, J.
1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the accused namely Pavnesh Kumar @ Rahul to challenge the order dated 07.03.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby it has proceeded to allow the application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for alteration of charge thereby amending the previous charge of offence punishable under Section 306 IPC to the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution arises from case FIR No.193 dated 02.12.2014 registered under Section 307 IPC at Police Station Division No.4, Ludhiana.
2. On the basis of statement given by Sunil Kumar an FIR bearing No.193 dated 02.12.2014 was registered and the same is extracted below:-
“Stated that I am studying B.Tech on private basis, doing Mechanical Engineering from AIIT Institute, Dugri, Ludhiana. We are five brothers and sisters in total. I have four sisters. My elder sister Reshma Rani got married in the year 2000 with Sachida Nand s/o Sham Lal, resident of Village Mavai Damiana, Tehsil Hasanganj, District Uthau, U.P. They have a daughter namely Simran who is aged 13 years. My brother-in-law and my sister are residing in our aforesaid house since their marriage. My brother-in-law Sachida Nand Tyagi, who was working as Senior Accountant with Gaurav Export, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana, on 29.11.2014, before going to a marriage at his village in U.P., went to meet his maternal uncle Suresh Kumar at his residence in Village Jodhewal at about 8.30 PM from his home on his motorcycle bearing no.PB-10-ED-9679 Make Splendor. Thereafter at about 10.00, he was sitting at the Railway Station along with his maternal uncle as the train had got delayed. At that time, Pavnesh Kumar alias Rahul s/o Sandeep Kumar, who is son of aunt (Massi) of Sachida Nand Tyagi and is residing in a rented accommodation near Kali Mata Mandir, Sandhu Nagar, Ludhiana, came there along with two unknown persons, who demanded money in respect of committees from my brother-in-law Sachida Nand, upon which my brother-in-law handed over the keys of the motorcycle and told him to keep the motorcycle with him till he comes back and they will settle the account later on. However, they took my brother-in-law and motorcycle along with them from the Railway Station, Ludhiana. In this regard, same information was given to the Police Station, Railway Station, Ludhiana. Today, on 2.12.14, at around 12.30 AM at night, my sister received a message on her mobile no.98148-09679 that you take away Sachida Nand otherwise he would die and he is lying in the fields on the back side of Green Land. Thereafter I along with my sister and relatives went to the spot, where, on the boundary of fields at the back side of Green Land School, my brother-in-law was sitting, whose hands and feet were tied with a rope. We took him to Civil Hospital for treatment but as the condition of my brother-in-law was serious, he was referred to DMC Hospital, where he is under treatment. When we reached at the spot, my brother-in-law told only this much that Rahul and two other persons along with him have poured medicine in his mouth and thereafter he fell unconscious. The cause of enmity is this that my brother-in-law had monetary transactions in respect of Committee with Pavnesh Kumar alias Rahul s/o his Massi. On account of this enmity, Parvesh Kumar alias Rahul and his companions with an intention to kill have forcefully poured poisonous medicine. Action be taken against them. Statement has been got recorded. It has been read and is correct. -sd- Sunil Kumar”
3. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was conducted by the police. Since the victim namely Sachida Nand had died on 03.12.2014, therefore, the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was added. However, after conclusion of the investigation, final report was submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC only, as the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC stood deleted. Si
