S.C.AGARWAL,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
(2.) THIS revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 19.8.2010 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Bulandshahar, in S.T. No. 488 of 2003, State Vs. Rajveer Singh and others, whereby charge framed under Section 304 IPC was altered to charge under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. Earlier charge under Sections 147, 148, 304, 149 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act was framed against the accused persons including the revisionist. The trial was over. At the stage of judgment, the trial court passed an order on 30th July, 2010 that accused Rakesh was alleged to have fired from a country made pistol on a crowd at chaupai, causing injury to Roop Ram resulting in his death, therefore, illustration (d) to Section 300 IPC was attracted and charge required to be altered. Consequently, an opportunity of hearing on the point of alteration of charge was provided to the defence and by order dated 19.8.2010, charge was altered and instead of charge u/s 304/149 IPC a new charge under Section 302/ 149 IPC was framed against Rajveer, Anil, Rakesh and Yogendra.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist submitted that the impugned order is perverse, illegal and arbitrary and was passed against the evidence on record. The trial court has failed to consider the facts and circumstances of the case. It was a case of sudden quarrel and shot fired by co-accused Rakesh was not intentional and was fired to save the life of others and therefore case would not travel beyond Section 304 IPC. The trial court also failed to consider the fact that the death of Roop Ram took place next day.;