JUDGMENT :

RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

1. Heard Sri V.K. Ojha, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Abhay Raj Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Deepak Kapoor, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. As per the office report, service report is still awaited.

3. Keeping in view the fact that the present revision is pending since 2.2.2023 and service of notice could not be affected by learned CJM on opposite party No. 2. With a view to avoid further delay in trial of the case, which is progressing before the court below, this Court is of the opinion that there is no need to wait for service of notice on opposite party No. 2 and the matter may be decided on merits after hearing learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA for the State, as this is a case based on police report.

4. Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.1.2023, passed by learned Additinal District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Chitrakoot in Sessions Trial No. 117 of 2016, State vs. Dev Narain, arising out of Case Crime No. 479 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323 IPC & 3/4 of D.P. Act, 1961, Police Station Karwi Kotwali Nagar, District Chitrakoot, whereby the court below rejected the application 29-Kha moved under Section 216 Cr.P.C. by the revisionist for alteration of charges framed against him.

5. The brief facts of the care are that in present case FIR was lodged at the instance of opposite party No. 2 Vibhuti Bhushan Garg with averment that his sister Rashmi was married to Kamal Kishore @ Satyanarayan on 22.2.2016, in which they have given sufficient cash and gifts to accused side but nonetheless the husband of his sister and his family members kept on demanding a four wheeler and washing machine and due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, they were subjecting her to cruelty and also would threaten her. Prior to four days of lodging of FIR, he visited the place of in-laws of his sister and her husband and her in-laws again made demand of dowry and refused to sent her with him without fulfilment of demand of dowry. He went back to home and apprised his father by telephone about the act of accused persons. On 25.5.2016, Sri Narayan, who is elder brother of the husband of his sister, informed him that the house of his sister was locked from the outside. He rushed to the place and got the lock broken in presence of police and found the dead body of his sister and there were injuries on her person. In the FIR, the husband, Sri Narain (jeth), Dev Narain (dewar) and three relatives of her husband were named. The post mortem examination of the deceased was conducted on 26.5.2016, in which six antemortem injuries were found on her person and cause of death was found by the Doctor as coma and shock due to antemortem injuries. The death was instantaneous. Satya Narain, the husband of the deceased was found missing from the date of incident and subsequently, it was known that his dead body was found between railway track. A Nokia mobile phone (twin SIM) was also recovered near the dead body and when Sub-Inspector inserted SIM in his own mobile phone and dialled a number, one Ashok Kumar Dwivedi replied the call and stated that the said number belongs to his brother-in-law (wife's brother) Satya Narain, who came and identified the body of Satya Narain. In his postmortem report also, injuries were found on his person and cause of death was recorded as antemortem injuries leading to asphyxia, which led to cardio respiratory failure and immediate cause was found strangulation. The police investigated the case and filed charge-sheet against present revisionist and name of other accused persons barring deceased Satya Narain was dropped during investigation, as their complicity was not found in the offence of dowry death of deceased Rashmi. Accused Dev Narain, who is brother-in-law of the deceased moved an application for discharge before trial court, which was rejected b