MAHESH GROVER,J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.8.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ambala vide which the prayer of the petitioner for alteration/addition of the charge in terms of Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been declined. On 18.4.2006, Ramita is stated to have died at her matrimonial home after five years of her marriage to one Dalvinder Kumar. The post-mortem report revealed the following injuries on the person of the deceased :- "Injuries 1. A lacerated wound triangular in shape on left side of forehead, 3 x 1.5 x 2 cm Muscle deep, clotted blood present. 2. A complete ligature mark is present around the neck above the criocoid cartilage, broad anteriorly (2 cm) narrow posteriorly towards the rope of neck. The ligature mark is pinkish brown in colour. On subcutaneous exams, petechial harmoneals are present, Muscle fibers are term and blood vessels engorged."
(2.) THE petitioner had represented to the police immediately after the death of Ramita that his sister had been murdered. The police instead of inquiring into the veracity of the allegations made by the petitioner went on to put up a challan under Sections 306/34 IPC against the accused persons namely Dalvinder Kumar, Raj Kishan and Savitri Devi. During the course of trial, statement of the petitioner was recorded in which he reiterated the allegations that his sister had been murdered and it was not a case under Section 306/34 IPC. The petitioner thereafter, moved an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. praying for alteration/addition to the charge which was declined, resulting in filing of the present petition. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the powers under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the Court at any time before the pronouncement of judgment. It is further contended that the post-mortem report clearly indicates that death was caused due to the injuries caused by the accused persons.
(3.) THE aforementioned contentions were refuted by the learned counsel for the respondent who stated that in the opinion of the doctor, death was due to asphyxia which could have been as a result of the suicidal action of the deceased.;