- (1.) R. K. Dash, J. Further hearing is taken up.
(2.) THE order of the learned XVIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Meerut framing additional charge under Section 302 I. P. C. in S. T. No. 1125 of 1999 has been assailed by the petitioner, ac cused in the aforesaid case. It is contended by Sri Mishra that after trial was concluded both parties commenced argument and on the adjournment date a petition was moved on behalf of the prosecution for alteration of charge. It was contended that evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution disclosed commission of mur der punishable under Section 302 I. P. C. Upon hearing the learned trial Judge ac cepted the contention of the prosecution and framed charge under Section 302 I. P. C. It is strenuously contended by Sri Mishra that looking to the materials available in the case diary, charges were framed under Sections 498-A, 306 and 201 and 201 I. P. C. According to the prosecution the deceased committed suicide and the petitioner abated the commission of the said offence punishable under Section I. P. C. So far as charge under Sections 498-A and 201 I. P. C. are concerned there is no dispute by either side. THE only question involved is whether charge having been framed under Section 306 I. P. C. , alternatively charge under Section 302 I. P. C. can be framed or not. Sri Mishra having taken me through the impugned order urges that it is a non speaking order and evidence brought in during trial has not been taken note of to find whether prima facie case under Sec tion 302-I. P. C. is made out or not. By reproducing the allegations made in the F. I. R. and taking into consideration the submission of the public prosecutor the learned trial Judge has held that a case under Section 302 I. P. C. is made out and accordingly altered the charge. THE order under challenging being not supported by reasons, contends Sri Mishra, smacks of arbitrariness which this Court in exercise of inherent power should set at naught. Per contra, Sri Amarjeet Singh, learned A. G. A. submits that it is the set tled position of law that if the Court could come to the conclusion that the accused could have committed the offence, the Court would be obliged to frame charge. He contends that the deceased while alive had informed her parents that there was danger to her life at the hands of the petitioner and other family members, that no post- mortem examination was con ducted on the dead body of the deceased and that dead body was cremated without any intimation to deceased's relatives. These circumstances taken together are sufficient to alter charge under Section 302 I. P. C. and, so, no fault can be found with the trial Judge to frame, charge for the said offence. With the assistance of the Counsel for both parties I have gone through the impugned order in detail, on scrutiny of which I find that the learned trial Judge having noted the prosecution case as depicted in the F. I. R. and the argument advanced by the public prosecutor jumped to the conclusion that there is, prima facie case to frame a charge under Section 302 I. P. C. When all the evidences were before him he would have scrutinised the same to find whether prima facie case of murder is made out so as to frame the charge under Section 302 I. P. C. Assuming the cir cumstances as pointed out by Sri Singh to be true, I would observe that the same are not sufficient to frame charge under Sec tion 302 I. P. C. Besides when the offences under Sections 306 and 302 I. P. C. run in two different directions either charge should be framed under Section 306 I. P. C. or 302 I. P. C. but not under both. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that the order passed by the learned trial Judge framing addi tional charge under Section 302 I. P. C. being unsustainable in law should be quashed.
(3.) RESULTANTLY, Criminal Misc. Ap plication is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Learned XVIII Addi tional District & Sessions Judge, Meerut is directed to conclude the trial without fur ther delay. Application is allowed. .;