The court retains discretion to alter charges as needed regardless of complainant's requests, emphasizing the independence of judicial decision-making.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

1.By means of the instant criminal revision, the revisionist is seeking setting aside of the impugned judgment and order dated 09.05.2025 passed in Sessions Trial No.138 of 2024, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Sarthak Chillar, pending in the court of learned Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 505, 506 and 307 of IPC, whereby the charges were framed against the revisionist for the aforementioned sections.

2. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.96 of 2024 was lodged by respondent no.3 on 07.05.2024 under Sections 147, 323 and 506 of IPC against the revisionist, alleging therein that on 03.05.2024, the revisionist along with certain other persons, had assaulted him, as a result of which he sustained injuries. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Dehradun u/s 147, 323, 506, 148, 149, 324, 325, 504 and 308 IPC, who, considering that the offence under Section 308 of IPC was exclusively triable by the sessions court, committed the matter to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, for trial. Subsequently, an application being Paper No.6-A was moved by respondent no.3 seeking addition of charge under Section 307 of IPC against the revisionist. The revisionist had also filed an objection to application Paper No.6A being Paper No.8-A before the learned Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun, objecting to the addition of Section 307 of IPC against him. The revisionist also filed an application being Paper No.9-A before the learned I^st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun, praying for his discharge under Section 308 of IPC and for sending the case back to learned Judicial Magistrate for trial. All the aforementioned applications came to be decided by the learned Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun, vide the impugned judgment and order dated 09.05.2025. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun, added a charge under Section 307 of IPC while rejecting the application Paper No.9A and framed the charges under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 504, 506 and 307 of IPC against the revisionist. Hence, the present criminal revision.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 03.05.2024; however, the FIR came to be lodged at a later date on 07.05.2024, after an inordinate delay of four days. The learned counsel submits that before lodging of FIR respondent no.3 had procured a medical examination from a private hospital. The learned counsel further submits that respondent no.3 deliberately avoided examination at a government hospital, which clearly casts a doubt on the genuineness of the respondent no.3’s story and shows that it is concocted.

4. The learned counsel for the revisionist also contends that the FIR was initially registered under less severe provisions, namely, Sections 147, 323 and 506 of IPC, but subsequently on the basis of a supplementary medical examination carried out on 16.05.2024, again in a private hospitals, the Investigating Officer had added fresh offences under Sections 148, 149, 324, 325, 504, and 307 of IPC against the revisionist. The learned counsel submits that the manner in which supplementary medical examination was conducted and fresh charges were incorporated itself indicates that the intention of respondent no.3 is to falsely implicate the revisionist under false charges. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the father of the revisionist had made a representation to the Senior Superintendent of Po