B.K.RATHI, J. - (1.) THE applicants are accused in S.T. No. 74 of 2001 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 15, Varanasi. In this case the charges for offences under Sections 323/34, 307/34, 504, 506 IPC were framed on 16-7-2001. Thereafter the statement of PW-1, Rajendra Prasad was recorded. The applicants then moved an application to alter the charge under Section 307/34 IPC to 324/34 IPC on the basis of his statement. The application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 6-7-2002. Aggrieved by it, the present petition has been filed.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant has relied on Clause (1) of Section 216 Cr. P.C. of which is as follows : “Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.” However, this clause does not provide for deletion of the charge and the charge for offence under Section 307/34 IPC cannot be deleted. The word “delete” has intentionally been not used by the Legislature.
(3.) HOWEVER , learned Counsel for the applicants, Sri Vinod Prasad has argued that his request is for alteration of the charge and not for deletion of any charge. The argument is totally misleadings and perverse. The charge framed under Section 307/34 IPC cannot be struck off and in its place charge under Section 324/34 IPC cannot be substituted. The real request, therefore, is to delete the charge under Section 307/34 IPC and to frame the charge under Section 324/34 IPC. The application is therefore, not for alternation of the charge.;