RAMU Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision is directed against the orders dated 14.12.2013 and 21.1.2013 passed by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Gautam Buddh Nagar in S.T. No. 383 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No. 140 of 2012, P.S. Rabupura, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, whereby the application under Section 216, Cr. P.C. moved by the accused -revisionist - -Ramu for alteration of the charge was rejected. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist contends that even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements of the witnesses are deemed to be correct, it is a case of sudden quarrel and the offence would not travel beyond Section 304, I.P.C. and the trial court committed illegality in framing the charge under Section 302, I.P.C. and should have allowed the application for alteration of the charge.

(3.) ACCORDING to the F.I.R., on 25.5.2012 at about 8:30 p.m. the revisionist met the deceased Rameshwar Singh and asked him about one Pooja. When Rameshwar expressed his ignorance, the revisionist fired at Rameshwar from a country made pistol causing his death. From a perusal of the F.I.R., a prima facie case under Section 302, I.P.C. is made out though in the statements of the witnesses, it has come that there was some altercation between the revisionist and the deceased. The question of deciding as to whether offence falls under Section 302, I.P.C. or under Section 304, I.P.C. shall arise only after the trial court comes to the conclusion that death of Rameshwar was caused by the revisionist. At this stage, when the charge -sheet has been filed in respect of the offence under Section 302, I.P.C., no sufficient ground exists for alteration of the charge from Section 302, I.P.C. to Section 304, I.P.C. At this stage, the impugned order does not call for any interference and does not suffer from any illegality. The revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.