Mr. Lohit Ganguly, Mr. Ajay Kumar and Ms. Reeta Puniya, Advocates v. THE STATE

Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with SI Sandeep, PS: Alipur. Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 4970/2018 & other connected matters Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:05.12.2025 17:07:22 + CRL.REV.P. 926/2018 STATE Through DCP District Rohini .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with SI Sandeep, PS: Alipur. versus

1. RAJPAL S/o Sh. Chander

2. HARI PRAKASH S/o Birbal

3. ASHOK S/o Birbal

4. BRAHAM PRAKASH S/o Birbal

5. BRAHAM SINGH S/o Rajbal All R/o V&Po Sungarpur, P.O. Mandola, Distt. Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Lohit Ganguly, Mr. Ajay Kumar and Ms. Reeta Puniya, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J. Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 4970/2018 & other connected matters Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:05.12.2025 17:07:22

1. The aforesaid Criminal M.C. 4970/2018 and Criminal Revision Petition 926/2018 have been filed by the Complainant Sh. Rajesh Chauhan and by the State respectively, while Criminal Revision Petition No. 811/2018 has been filed by the accused persons to challenge Order on Charge dated 26.07.2018 whereby the Ld. ASJ has directed framing of charges under Sections 341/323/304/120B (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) against Rajpal, Hari Prakash, Braham Prakash, Ashok and Braham Singh. 2. Briefly stated, FIR No. 0036/2017 was registered on the statement of Complainant Rajesh Kumar, who stated that on 30.01.2017, at about 8:30 PM, he returned from the plot to his house, when Hari Prakash caught hold of him and gave him fists blows. In the meanwhile, Braham Prakash s/o Birbal, Ashok s/o Birbal and Rajpal s/o Chander, also came and threatened that “jaan se maar do bachne na paye”. In the meanwhile, his father Babu Khadak Singh on hearing the noise, came out of the house on which Braham Prakash and Ashok caught hold of him, while Hari Prakash and Rajpal caught hold of his father and gave fists and leg blows on stomach and below. As his father tried to get himself released, all the four Accused with an intent to kill his father, gave fist blows and slaps because of which he fell and was unable to get up. He immediately took his father to Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, where he was declared dead. 3. On his complaint, FIR No. 36/2017 was registered under Sections 302/341/323/34 IPC. After investigation, the Chargesheet was accordingly filed. Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 4970/2018 & other connected matters Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:05.12.2025 17:07:22

4. The Ld. ASJ in the Impugned Order dated 26.07.2018 observed that prima facie it was shown that the father had been beaten up by the four Accused, but it was observed that it was not a case under Section 300 IPC, but it was covered under Section 299 IPC, and accordingly directed the framing of charges under Sections 341/323/304/120B IPC, even though the Chargesheet was filed under S.302 IPC . 5. Criminal M.C. 4970/2018 and Criminal Revision Petition 926/2018 have been filed by the State and the Complainant, respectively, being aggrieved with the framing of charges under 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. 6. Criminal Revision Petition No. 811/2018 has been filed by the Accused persons by the framing of the Charges against them, and claim that Charge under S.304 IPC, is liable to be set aside. Criminal M.C. 4970/2018 by Rajesh Chauhan, Complainant : 7. Rajesh Chauhan, the Complainant has challenged the Order on charge on the grounds that the Ld. ASJ had observed that the Accused persons had the knowledge that their act was likely to cause death of the deceased, despite which Charge has not been directed to be framed under Section 302 IPC, when in fact, it comes squarely under Clauses 1 and 2 of Section 300 IPC. 8. Furthermore, the Ld. Trial Court erred in delving deep into the aspect of intention of the Accused persons at the stage of charges, in view of the fact that there was a clear exhortation to murder the deceased, as it is a matter of trial. Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 4970/2018 & other connected matters Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:05.12.2025 17:07:22

9. The reliance on the evidence of Court witness CW1 Dr. R. P. Singh at the stage of framing of charges, is not permitted and is contrary to Section 227 Cr.P.C. The Order to summoning the Court witness was in the nature of an Order under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., seeking further evidence post filing of the Chargesheet, which is not permissible. The evidence of CW1 was recorded at the pre-charge stage, which is unknown to law. Furthermore, he was not the author of the medical opinion about the cause of death of the deceased and gave an opinion beyond and contrary to the record. The direct oral evidence against the Accused persons, had to be given primacy over the opinion evidence of CW1 Dr. R. P. Singh. 10. Reliance is placed on Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar (2008) 14 SCC 1, wherein the Apex Court held that there is no scope for the Accused to produce any evidence in support of his submissions at the stage of charge. Similar observations have been made in Kewal Krishan v. Suraj