- (1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) This Cr. Revision application has been filed with a prayer for directing the trial court to frame charge under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. against the Opposite Part No. 2 and to try the opposite party No. 2 accordingly.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner would explain that under Sections 307 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, vide Sessions Trial No. 368 of 2002, arising out of Jamua P.S. Case No. 29 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 255 of 2004, the trial was conducted against several accused persons including the Opposite Party No. 2 but clue to inadvertence, the charge under Sections 307 and 302/34 of the I.P.C. was omitted in respect of the Opposite Party No. 2 and consequently, while recording the judgment, the trial court could not convict the accused/Opposite Party No. 2 for the offences under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. Even though, the trial court has found that the death of the deceased was caused pursuant to the assault, conjointly made by the accused persons including the Opposite Party No. 2 in furtherance of their common intention to kill the deceased. Learned Counsel therefore prays that under the provisions of Section 464 of the Cr.P.C., the trial court be directed to try the case against the Opposite Party No. 2 by framing charge for the offences under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. against him.;