Back
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
SARTHAK CHHILLAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
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.
The court retains discretion to alter charges as needed regardless of complainant's requests, emphasizing the independence of judicial decision-making.
The appellate court's modification of conviction from Section 307 to Section 324 IPC was justified due to insufficient evidence of grievous injury, upheld by the revisional court.
Accused cannot maintain application under Section 128(1)(a), Cr.P.C. for transferring case from Court of Sessions to a Court of Magistrate on the ground that no offence under Section 308, I.P.C. is m....
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction limits intervention in Trial Court decisions unless there is a clear error or injustice, especially regarding the framing of charges under the Criminal Proced....
At the stage of considering an application for discharge, the court must proceed on the assumption that the material brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material to determin....
The court affirmed that for Section 307 IPC, causing hurt with intent or knowledge is sufficient, and the trial court must assess evidence to determine if charges are warranted.
At the charge framing stage, the court only needs to establish a prima facie case indicating the accused might have committed the offence, without delving into the sufficiency of evidence.
A charge under section 307 IPC requires sufficient evidence beyond mere confessions to police, which are inadmissible for such purposes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court in altering or adding charges and committing the case to the Court of Session, as well as the limitations o....
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
