SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(All) 1982

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K. N. SINGH
GHAN SHYAM ALIAS SUBHASH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
CRI. R. 2204 Of 1985
Decided On : 09/15/2003

Advocates Appeared:
Apul Mishra

The charges of Section 302 IPC (murder) and Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) cannot go together, and specific evidence is required to support the charges.

Headnote:

Additional Charge - Section 306 IPC - The court set aside the order framing the additional charge under Section 306 IPC, emphasizing that the charges of Section 302 IPC (murder) and Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) cannot go together, and directed the trial court to examine the evidence collected during the investigation to amend or alter the charge based on specific evidence.

Fact of the Case:

The revision was filed against the order framing the additional charge under Section 306 IPC in a case where the accused was charge sheeted for the murder of Smt. Meera. The Sessions court had framed charges under Section 302 IPC, and later framed the additional charge under Section 306 IPC.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that both the charges of Section 302 IPC (murder) and Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) cannot go together, and emphasized the need for specific evidence to support the charges. The court directed the trial court to examine the evidence collected during the investigation and proceed to decide the matter expeditiously.

Issues: The issues revolved around the framing of the additional charge under Section 306 IPC and the need for specific evidence to support the charges.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the charges of Section 302 IPC and Section 306 IPC are of distinct and different categories, and directed the trial court to examine the evidence collected during the investigation to amend or alter the charge based on specific evidence.

Final Decision: The revision was allowed, and the order framing the additional charge under Section 306 IPC was set aside. The trial court was directed to examine the evidence collected during the investigation and proceed to decide the matter expeditiously.

K. N. SINGH, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision has been filed against the order dated 15-10-1985 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, in Session Trial No. 94 of 1984 framing the additional charge under Section 306 I. P. C.

( 2 ) THE brief facts giving rise to the present revision are that revisionist and others were charge sheeted for the murder of Smt. Meera wife of accused Murari Lai. The Sessions court framed charge under Section 302 IPC on 30-11-1984. However, later on the charge under Section 306 I. P. C. was also framed on 15/10/1985. It appears that both the charges stand together hence the learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that it can either be a murder or the suicide. There is absolutely no evidence that deceased Smt. Meera was ever tortured.

( 3 ) I have perused the charges framed. It is also not clear as to why and under what circumstances the additional charge under section 306 I. P. C. was also framed.

( 4 ) THE offence under Section 306 IPC cannot be said to be a minor offence in relation to an offence under Section 302 IPC within the meaning of Section 222 Cr. P. C. Both the offences are of distinct and different categories. The basic constituent of an offence under Section 302 IPC is homicidal death whereas under Section 306 IPC it is suicidal. death and abetment thereof. Thus, both the charges cannot go together, either the deceased had committed suicide or she was murdered. It was for the trial Court to have examined the evidence collected during the investigation then framed the charge.

( 5 ) IN the result the revision is allowed and the order dated 15-10-1985 charging the revisionist under Section 306 IPC is set aside.

( 6 ) IT is hereby directed that the trial Court shall examine whole of the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation and on that basis it may amend or alter the charge but the charge should be specific.

( 7 ) THE trial has become sufficiently old hence it is hereby directed that the concerned Court shall proceed to decide the matter expeditiously. Revision allowed.


.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top