Dismissed

Raju Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2024/387/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, dismissed a criminal revision petition filed for condonation of delay. The core dispute involved the scheduling of the revision and the rejection of arguments claiming a character error regarding Section 304 IPC charges against the revisionists.

What did the court decide?

The revision is dismissed; the impugned order rejecting the application for correction of the charge is upheld.

Raju Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:64339

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 387 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Raju Yadav And 2 Others

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Amar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶7

(I.A. No.1 of 2024)

¶8

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision.

¶9

Learned AGA states that he does not intend to file objections to the aforesaid application.

¶10

On due consideration, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the revision is condoned.

¶11

Order on memo of revision

¶12

Heard.

¶13

Instant revision under Section 438/442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed challenging the order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC New, District Gonda in Sessions Trial No.1191 of 2022 in re: State vs. Jai Ram Yadav and others, arising out of Case Crime No.145 of 2022 whereby the learned trial court has rejected the application 13 Kha of the revisionists seeking correction in the charge framed against them.

¶14

The contention of learned counsel for the revisionists is that an FIR dated 22.05.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the revision, had been lodged by the complainant against the revisionists and one Sri Jai Ram under the provisions of Sections 323, 304, 504 and 506 IPC.

¶15

The authorities investigated the matter and submitted a charge sheet dated 26.06.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the affidavit filed in support of the application for interim relief, whereby Sri Jai Ram has been found of having committed the offence under Section 304, 323, 504, 506 IPC while the revisionists have only been found of having committed an offence under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC.

¶16

The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 25.02.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed in support of the application for interim relief, considering the aforesaid has taken cognizance and had summoned the revisionists in order to face trial.

¶17

Subsequent thereto, the charges have been framed by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 21.01.2023 whereby, so far as the revisionists are concerned, a charge under Section 304 read with Section 34 IPC has also been framed against them. A copy of the said order is Annexure-6 to the affidavit filed in support of the application for interim relief.

¶18

The revisionists filed an application on 10.03.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-8 to the affidavit filed in support of the application for interim relief, contending that framing of charge against them under Section 304 IPC appears to be a typographical error inasmuch as once the charge sheet has not been submitted against them indicating the charge of Section 304 IPC consequently the said typographical error be corrected.

¶19

The learned court vide order dated 23.02.2024 has rejected the said application by contending that the charge under Section 304 apart from other provisions of IPC has been framed with application of mind after considering the material on record and there is no typographical error in the same.

¶20

Being aggrieved, instant revision has been filed.

¶21

The argument of learned counsel for the revisionists is that even though the FIR may have been lodged against the revisionists as well as Sri Jai Ram under the aforesaid provisions of IPC including Section 304 IPC yet once the charge

¶22

sheet had been submitted by the authorities in which it is only Sri Jai Ram who has been indicated for having committed the offence under Section 304 apart from other provisions of the IPC and the revisionists have not been found to be involved in the incident pertaining to Section 304 IPC consequently framing of the charge by the learned court under Section 304 read with Section 34 IPC was a typographical error on the part of the learned court which aspect of the matter has not been considered while rejecting the application filed by the revisionists for correction of the said error.

¶23

On the other hand, learned AGA has supported the order impugned by contending that when the FIR was lodged against the revisionists including Sri Jai Ram under the provisions of Section 323, 304, 504 and 506 IPC and from a bare perusal of the averments contained in the said FIR all the four persons were involved in the incident which has resulted in the death of the wife of the complainant consequently merely because the charge sheet has been submitted in which the revisionists have not been found involved in the offence under Section 304 IPC the same cannot preclude the learned court from considering the material on record which was the FIR which was on record wherein the revisionists have been named for the aforesaid offence and as such no error has been committed by the learned trial court while rejecting the application filed by the revisionists.

¶24

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having perused the record, it emerges that initially an FIR had been lodged against the revisionists as well as Sri Jai Ram under the provisions of Sections 323, 304, 504 and 506 IPC. The authorities have submitted the charge sheet dated 26.06.2022 wherein so far as the revisionists were concerned an offence under the provisions of Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC has already been made out. While framing of the charge the learned court has framed the charge under Section 304 and 34 IPC against the revisionists. The revisionists filed an application for deletion of the charge as framed under Section 304 IPC against them on the ground that the same appears to be a typographical error which application has been rejected by the learned court by the order impugned dated 23.02.2024.

¶25

Framing of the charge is governed by Section 228 of the Cr.P.C.

¶26

Bare perusal of Section 228 of Cr.P.C. itself indicates that framing of charge would be there where if after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid the Judge is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then the charges be framed.

¶27

Once from the material on record prima facie a case against the revisionists was made out under Section 304 apart from the other provisions of the IPC in which incident the wife of the complainant had also died consequently no error was committed by the learned court while framing the charge against the revisionists under the provisions of Section 304 apart from the other provisions of the IPC. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the learned court while rejecting the application filed by the revisionists vide order dated 23.02.2024 inasmuch as the learned court has definitely opined that framing of charge under Section 304 apart from other provisions of the IPC was an act which has been done with application of mind while framing the charge against the revisionists.

¶28

This aspect of the matter has recently been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State vs. Shiv Charan Bansal - 2020 (2) SCC 290 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarised the principles relating to requirements and duties of the Court at the stage of framing of charge wherein it has been held that there must be appreciation of material available on record at the stage of framing of charge and grave suspicion is enough for framing of the charge.

¶29

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion more particularly when from the material on record in which the act of the revisionists is clearly made out, as such, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order impugned. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.

¶30

Order Date :- 18.9.2024 A. Katiyar

¶31

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raju Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kuldeep Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shameem @ Mohd. Shamim Khan and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home,Lko and Another

Mujeeb Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rajesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 8 Others

Hari Shankar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another

Jagdev Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others