YOGENDRA KUMAR SANGAL, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 8.2.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (B.C. Act), Jaunpur State v. Vijay Pandey and others under sections 147, 323. 325, 304, 504 & 506 IPC, P.S. Panwara, district Jaunpur in S.T. No. 462 of 1999.
(2.) BY the impugned order, learned Session Judge has accepted the application of the prosecution of framing additional/in alternative charges under sections 302/149 and 307/149 IPC against the ac­cused persons. Heard learned Counsel for the appli­cants, learned AGA for the State and pe­rused the record. As per prosecution case, on 2.6.1998 at about 5 O'clock, accused per­sons under the common object having Lathi, Danda and Hokey in their hands came at the door of the informant and badly abused him and his father. When his father asked them not to abuse, on this ac­cused persons have given blow of Hockey on the head of his father, who fell down on the spot. Rest accused persons started to beat him with Lathi and Danda. He himself, his Brother Rakesh and Mother Jadawati came there for his father's rescue, they were also beaten by all the accused per­sons. Witnesses Ambika Prasad and In-dradev etc. saved them. They brought their father hospital but the Doctor declared him dead. Their injuries were examined by the Doctor. On this report in Case No. 82 of 1998, a case under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 504 and 304 IPC was registered. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons and case was committed to the Court of Session against the accused persons. The accused persons denied the case of the prosecution and claimed their trial. The trial was started. Statements of the two witnesses were recorded. At this stage, an application was moved on behalf of the prosecution under sections 216 Cr.P.C. for framing additional charges against the accused per­sons, the same was allowed by the Trial Court. Against this order of the Trial Court. Revision No. 2457 of 2004 was filed on be­half of the accused persons before this Court in which this Court vide order dated 6th December, 2009 set aside the order of the Trial Court and a direction was issued that the Court below is at liberty to alter or add charge after taking evidence of the Doctors. After taking the evidence of the two Doctors the Trial Court again on the application of the prosecution passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by this order, the instant Petition has been fined.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant argued that still there is no sufficient evi­dence on record to frame additional/in alternative changes against the accused per­sons for their trial under sections 302/149 and 307/149 IPC. On the other hand learned AGA ar­gued that after considering the on oath statement of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 who are the eye witnesses of the occurrence and also taking into consideration statements of the Doctors who have examined the injuries of the injured, and conducted the post­mortem of the deceased, had given a find­ing that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is necessary to frame charges against the accused persons in alternative for the offence under sections 302/149 and 307/149 IPC.;