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

2010 Supreme(All) 2500

S.C.AGARWAL
RIPUDAMAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Sanjay Kumar Singh for the Revisionist; A.G.A. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble S.C. Agarwal, J.—This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 22.5.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial No. 600 of 2001, State v. Ripudaman and others, whereby the Court below allowed the application moved by the complainant Ram Sagar Ram under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for altering the charge.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. There is no need to issue notice to the complainant.

4. Initially, charge under Sections 147, 148, 323/34, 325/34, 504, 427 I.P.C. And 3 (1) X S.C./S.T. Act were framed against the revisionists. An application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. was moved by the complainant for addition of charge under Section 379 I.P.C. on the ground that accused persons, at the time of incident, took away saria, cement, chairs etc. from the place of occurrence.

5. Learned Judge found that the accused persons came on the land of the complainant, took away saria, cement and chairs, damaged the wall, beat the complainant and his father, attempted to snatch the licensed revolver of complainant’s father. The accused persons were more than five in numbers and, th







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