The trial Court may alter charges based on the evidence, determining appropriate charges during the course of proceedings.

1. This Revision under S.397/401 of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner / accused being aggrieved by the order dated 01.05.2023 passed in Sessions Trial No.65/2022 by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Indore whereby charges have been framed against him for commission of alleged offences punishable under S.34(2) of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 and S.304, S.308 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. As per the prosecution, on 15.01.2021, at about 7.30 a.m., on A.B. Road, Kuwalifata a Maruti Swift Dzire Car bearing registration No.MP - 09 - CR - 1277 was coming from towards Manpur. About 200 meters prior to the spot of incident there was a sign board to the effect that ahead is a residential area and barricades were also put up by the traffic Police to highlight the said fact. However, the driver of the vehicle drove the same at a great speed, rashly and negligently and dashed the same against one Pooja and Jagdish. As a result of the impact, they were thrown into a deep culvert and eventually succumbed to their injuries. The driver of the vehicle managed to flee after stopping the car. On death of Pooja and Jagdish merg was registered and investigation was commenced during the course of which the petitioner was arrested on the allegation that it is he who was driving the vehicle from which accident has been caused. Upon completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed by the Police before the Court concerned and eventually the impugned order has been passed by the Court below framing charges as aforesaid against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charge as framed by the Court below under S.304 of the IPC is wholly erroneous. It cannot be said that the petitioner had any intention or knowledge of causing any bodily injury to the deceased since the incident took place all of a sudden. The petitioner and the deceased did not know each other, hence it cannot be said that the petitioner had any intention of causing their death or any bodily injury to them. Only the charge under S.304A of the IPC could have been framed against the petitioner at best and not under S.304 and S.308 of the IPC. It is further submitted that the essential ingredients for framing of charge against the petitioner under S.304 and S.308 of the IPC being absent the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Reliance has been placed by him on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Satnam Singh V/s. State of Rajasthan 2000 (1) SCC 662 , Mahadev Prasad Kaushik V/s. State of U.P. and another, Cr.A. No.1625/2008 decided on 17.10.2008 and of this Court in Narendra Kumar V/s. State of M.P. , M.Cr.C. No.17834/2023 decided on 10.05.2023 and Ajeet Lalwani V/s. State of M.P. , M.Cr.C. No.21336/2023 decided on 16.06.2023.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State has submitted that the essential ingredients for framing of charge against the petitioner for offences punishable under S.304, S.308 of the IPC are very much present in the case hence the charges have correctly been framed against him in view of which the petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The issue in the present matter is as to whether on the allegations of speedy, rash and negligent driving on part of the petitioner resulting in death of two persons, charge could have been framed against him for offences punishable under S.304 and S.308 of the IPC or whether the same ought to have been under S.304A thereof. Under similar fact situation the Supreme Court had the occasion of considering this precise question in the case of State of Maharashtr