Back
RAJ BEER SINGH
Narendra Pal – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Raj Beer Singh, J.
This application under Section 482 CrPC has been preferred against the order dated 5.6.2024, passed by learned Session Judge, Rampur in S. T. No. 297 of 2022 (State v. Narendra Pal and others), under Sections-498-A, 304- B IPC and Sections-3/4 of D. P. Act, Police Station-Khajuria, District-Rampur, whereby it was directed that alternative charge under Section 302/34 IPC be also framed against the accused / applicants.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
3. Perusal of record shows that the applicants / accused are facing trial in the aforesaid case. On 28.11.2022 the trial Court framed charges against them for offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections-3 / 4 of D. P. Act. It appears that during trial the public prosecutor has moved an application stating that in post-mortem report, cause of death of deceased has been shown asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem throttling and the autopsy surgeon has already been examined during trial as PW 5 and thus, charge under Section 302/34 IPC be also framed against accused-applicants in alternative to the aforesaid charges. It appears that said app
A charge under Section 304B IPC cannot substitute for a murder charge under Section 302 IPC; the main charge must reflect the evidence available.
trial court while considering the discharge application is not to act as a mere post office. It can evaluate the evidence for a limited purpose to find out whether there are sufficient grounds to try....
(1) Dowry death – Section 302 of I.P.C. cannot be added as an alternative charge(2) In every case of Dowry related deaths, I.O. of case shall hold wide spectrum of investigation to examine and collec....
The court clarified that a conviction under Section 304B for dowry death does not substitute for a murder charge under Section 302, emphasizing the need for distinct evidence for each charge.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence at the time of framing of charges.
Victims cannot appeal for enhancement of sentences under Section 372 Cr.P.C., which is reserved for the State under Section 377.
The judgment established the importance of re-evaluating evidence and distinguishing between different sections of IPC to determine the appropriate conviction.
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
