Vijay Kumar Verma - (1.) -Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record. This revision is being decided at the admission stage without issuing notice to respondent No. 2 Sanjay.
(2.) BY means of this revision preferred under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Cr. P.C.'), order dated 15.5.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 17, Bulandshahr in S.T. No. 614 of 2004, State v. Subhash and others, under Section 306/201, I.P.C., P. S. Jahangeerabad, District Bulandshahr has been challenged. BY the impugned order, alternative charge under Section 304B, I.P.C. has been framed against the accused persons including the revisionist. Facts as emerging from the record leading to the filing of this revision, in brief, are that an F.I.R. was lodged by the respondent No. 2 Sanjay at P. S. Jahanageerabad, District Bulandshahr, where a case under Sections 498A, 304B and 201, I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered at Crime No. 61 of 2003, against (1) Subhash (revisionist herein) (2) Saudan Singh ; (3) Omwati ; (4) Harpal Singh; (5) Harishchandra ; (6) Banti. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and on the case being committed to the Court of Session for trial, S.T. No. 614 of 2004 was registered, in which charge under Sections 306 and 201, I.P.C. was framed against the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, evidence of the prosecution was taken and after hearing argument on 2.5.2008, the judgment was reserved and 15.5.2008 was fixed for delivery of judgment. Instead of passing judgment on 15.5.2008, the learned trial court decided to frame alternative charge under Section 304B, I.P.C. and consequently, impugned order was passed, which has been challenged in this revision. The main submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist is that by passing the impugned order, the learned trial court wants to fill up lacuna of the prosecution case and hence, impugned order being unjustified and illegal should be set aside. It was also submitted that impugned order has been passed at very belated stage, due to which the accused persons would be prejudiced, as they had opened their case before the witnesses and if the witnesses are re-examined again in view of the alternative charge under Section 304B, I.P.C., then certainly serious prejudice would be caused to the accused persons.
(3.) THE learned A.G.A. on the other hand supporting the impugned order submitted that there is no scope to make any interference in the impugned order, as the said order does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Having taken the submissions of the parties counsel into consideration and after going through the record, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. It is true that alternative charge under Section 304B I.P.C. has been framed at the very belated stage at the time of delivery of judgment, but there is no legal bar to alter or add to the charge at any stage. Sub-section (1) of Section 216, Cr. P.C., lays down that any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. In view of this clear provision, charge can be altered or fresh charge can be framed at any time before judgment is pronounced. Annexure I is the copy of the F.I.R. of case Crime No. 61 of 2003, which was registered against the accused persons. In this F.I.R., there is allegation that the accused persons were causing harassment of the deceased Smt. Mamta making the demand of dowry. It was also alleged that when the demand of the accused persons for dowry was not fulfilled, they committed murder of the deceased by burning her and with a view to destroy the evidence, dead body also was cremated. Charge-sheet under Sections 306 and 201, I.P.C. was submitted, which shows that according to Investigating Officer, the deceased had committed suicide. The defence case as put to the prosecution witnesses at the time of their cross-examination is that suicide was committed by the deceased. If a married woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry, then in such case also, the provisions of Section 304B, I.P.C., would be attracted as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Baseba Punnaiah and others, 1990 (1) Crimes 611 and Smt. Shanti and another v. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 SC 1226 : 1991 ACR 285 (SC). From the impugned order, it is observed that the complainant had supported F.I.R. version in his statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C. Therefore, the learned court below did not commit any illegality in framing alternative charge under Section 304B, I.P.C., in this case.;