Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
C.A.Rahim
ATIVEER SINGH
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 22 July 1997
Criminal Revision No. 415 of 1997,
charge framing - criminal law - The court found that the charge had not been framed for the injuries caused to Gaurav Pratap Singh, leading to the decision to remand the case back to the trial court for re-consideration and re-framing of the charge if necessary.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution case was that Gaurav Pratap Singh was injured by a firearm, but the charge had been framed for attempt to murder Veer Mani Singh.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the matter should be re-considered by the trial judge and remanded the case back for re-framing of the charge for proper adjudication.
Issues: Inadequate charge framing for the injuries caused to Gaurav Pratap Singh.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the inadequacy of the charge framing and the need for proper adjudication of the case.
Final Decision: The revision was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the trial judge for re-consideration and re-framing of the charge in accordance with the court's observations.
Heard learned Coun sel and the learned A. G. A. The matter is taken up for final hearing on consent of both the parties.
2. It has been contended that the prosecution case was that Gaurav Pratap Singh was injured by a fire- arm but charge has been framed for attempt to murder to Veer Mani Singh. It appears that no charge has been framed for the injuries caused to Gaurav Pratap Singh. So I find that the matter should be re- considered by the learned trial Judge.
3. Upon a consideration of the facts and also submissions of both the sides, I find that the case should be remanded back to the trial court for re-consideration and for re-framing of the charge, if necessary, for proper adjudication of the case.
4. The Revision is,therefore,allowed. The impugned order dated 18-3-1997 passed by the VIHth Addl. Sessions Judge, Etawah,in crime case No. 160 of 1991 and S. T. No. 50 of 1995 be set aside. The case is remanded back to the trial Judge for re-con sideration of the charge in the light of the above observations. He will proceed after re-framing the charge in accordance with law.
Revision allowed
.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
