Jail Singh v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 149, 304
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 161, 216
Judgment
Mr. Tarun Pande, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Pawan Kumar Nath, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 5. Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Counter affidavit filed today in Court by the State is kept with records.
The present C482 application has been filed against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by learned first Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Session Trial No.256 of 2019, State vs. Prem Singh and others.
The facts in nutshell are that a First Information Report was lodged on 20.08.2019 at 21:52 hours by the applicant/informant against respondent nos.2 to 5 stating therein the allegations of Sections 147, 148, 302, 120-B, 504 & 34 IPC. The matter was investigated. Postmortem was conducted and on completion of investigation, the charge- sheet was filed against the accused persons.
The grievance of the applicant in nutshell is that the court below by way of order dated 20.12.2022 did not frame the alternate charge against the accused persons under Section 149 read with Section 304 IPC against respondent nos.2 to 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 1 has been annexed. It is mainly stated that the court below after going through the charge-sheet and other evidence framed the charges against the accused.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the court below did not frame the alternate charge under Section 149 read with Section 304 IPC against the accused persons. This argument is liable to be rejected out rightly in view of the legal position. In this regard, Section 216 Cr.P.C. clearly provides that any court may alter or add to any charge (at any time) before the judgment is pronounced.
In such view of the matter, after the evidence is adduced by the witnesses before the court and the court reaches to the conclusion that alternative charge is required then it can very well do so in view of Section 216 Cr.P.C. Moreover, already the charge under Section 149 IPC has been framed against the accused persons in respect of other sections as is clear from charge dated 20.12.2022.
In my opinion, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment. The C482 application fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Interim order dated 01.02.2023 is hereby vacated. Ravi (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 08.07.2025 2
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.