Vijay Kumar Verma - (1.) BY means of this revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Cr. P.C.'), dated 19.5.2004, passed by Special Judge (E. C. Act), Jaunpur, in S.T. No. 462 of 1999 State v. Vijay Pandey and others, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 304, 504 and 506, I.P.C. has been challenged.
(2.) BY the impugned order, the learned court below has allowed the application 45B moved on behalf of complainant to frame alternate charge under Sections 302 and 307, I.P.C. The facts leading to the filing of this revision, in brief are that an F.I.R. was lodged on 2.6.1998 by Rajesh Kumar (O.P. No. 2 herein) at P. S. Pawara, district Jaunpur, where a case at Crime No. 82 of 1998, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506 and 304, I.P.C. was registered against Vijay Pandey, Akhilesh alias Lala, Vimlesh, Subhash, Chintamani, Sankatha, Shatrughan and Lakshmi Kant. The allegations made in the F.I.R., in brief, are that the accused persons having lathi, danda and hockey came on the door of the house of the complainant on 2.6.1998, at about 5.00 p.m. and caused marpeet, thereby causing injuries to the father of the complainant, due to which he died in the hospital. Injuries are said to have been caused to the complainant, his brother Rakesh and mother Smt. Ladawati also. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under aforesaid sections. On the case being committed to the court of session for trial, S.T. No. 462 of 1999 was registered, in which charges under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 325/149, 304/149, 504 and 506, I.P.C. were frame against the accused persons on 7.11.2000. Prior to leading any evidence, an application was moved on behalf of complainant that alternate charge under Sections 302 and 307, I.P.C. be framed against the accused persons. The court below vide impugned order has allowed that application and order to frame additional charge under Sections 302/149 and 307/149, I.P.C. in the alternative has been passed. Hence, this revision. I have heard arguments of Sri M. S. Khan, advocate, appearing for the revisionists, Sri B. K. Mishra, counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and A.G.A. for the State.
(3.) THE main submission made by learned counsel for the revisionists was that without taking any evidence the court below could not frame additional charge under Section 302/307 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and hence the impugned order being illegal, deserves to be quashed. For this submission, reliance has been placed on Ishwarchand Amichand Govadia v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2007 (1) All JIC 37 : 2006 (3) ACR 3192 (SC) and Munna Lal Agrawal v. State of U. P. and others, 2002 CBC 354 : 2002 (2) ACR 1210. In response, it was submitted by learned counsel for the complainant and A.G.A. that charge can be altered or added at any stage before pronouncing the judgment and hence interference by this Court in the impugned order would not be justified, as the said order does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error.;