Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
S.C.Agarwal, J.
Ramu -Appellant
Versus
State of U.P.and Another -Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 258 of 2013
Decided On : 04-02-2013
Section 302, I.P.C. - Criminal Revision - Charge Alteration
Fact of the Case:
The accused sought alteration of the charge from Section 302, I.P.C. to Section 304, I.P.C. based on the argument that the incident was a sudden quarrel and the offence would not travel beyond Section 304, I.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that a prima facie case under Section 302, I.P.C. was made out based on the F.I.R., and that the question of deciding whether the offence falls under Section 302, I.P.C. or Section 304, I.P.C. shall arise only after the trial court comes to the conclusion that the death was caused by the accused. The court concluded that at this stage, no sufficient ground existed for alteration of the charge.
Issues: The main issue was whether the charge under Section 302, I.P.C. should be altered to Section 304, I.P.C. based on the nature of the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the prima facie case under Section 302, I.P.C. made out from the F.I.R., and the understanding that the question of altering the charge would arise only after the trial court determines the cause of death.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed as lacking merit.
This criminal revision is directed against the orders dated 14.12.2013 and 21.1.2013 passed by Vlth Additional Sessions Judge, Gautam Buddh Nagar in S.T. No. 383 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No. 140 of 2012. P.S. Rabupura, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, whereby the application under Section 216, Cr. P.C. moved by the accused-revisionist—Ramu for alteration of the charge was rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State.
There is no need to issue notice to opposite party No. 2.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements of the witnesses are deemed to be correct, it is a case of sudden quarrel and the offence would not travel beyond Section 304, I.P.C. and the trial court committed illegality in framing the charge under Section 302, I.P.C. and should have allowed the application for alteration of the charge.
4. Learned A.G.A. supported the impugned order.
5. According to the F.I.R., on 25.5.2012 at about 8 : 30 p.m., the revisionist met the deceased Rameshwar Singh and asked him about one Pooja. When Rameshwar expressed his ignorance, the revisionist fired at Rameshwar from a country made pistol causing his death. From a perusal of the F.I.R., a prima facie case under Section 302. I.P.C. is made out though in the statements of the witnesses, it has come that there was some altercation between the revisionist and the deceased. The question of deciding as to whether offence falls under Section 302, I.P.C. or under Section 304, I.P.C. shall arise only after the trial court comes to the conclusion that death of Rameshwar was caused by the revisionist. At this stage, when the charge-sheet has been filed in respect of the offence under Section 302, I.P.C., no sufficient ground exists for alteration of the charge from Section 302, I.P.C. to Section 304. I.P.C. At this stage, the impugned order does not call for any interference and does not suffer from any illegality.
6. The revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
_____________
AI
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
