Dismissed

Santosh Kumar Mishra S/O Ghanshyam Mishra v. Parmeshwar Bacchu Tiwari and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Jan 2019REVN/84/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision application, the applicant sought to alter the framed charges and call for records alleging conspiracy and uninvestigated offences. The High Court dismissed the application, upholding the trial court’s charge based on medical evidence, while noting the trial court’s power to alter charges later if required.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; charge under sections 323, 324, 427 IPC r/w section 34 IPC is maintained; trial Court empowered to alter charge if evidence so warrants.

Santosh Kumar Mishra S/O Ghanshyam Mishra Vs… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

revn.84.2017_901.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.84 OF 2017

¶5

Santosh Kumar Mishra … Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Shri Parmeshwar B. Tiwari & Ors. … Respondent

¶8

Mr.Santosh Kumar Mishra for the Applicant in person – present

¶9

Mr.A.R. Patil, APP, for the Respondent – State

¶10

CORAM: Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶11

DATED: JANUARY 23, 2019

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

While arguing the matter, the application in person insisted that the Record & Proceeding be called for and the charge which is framed under sections 323, 324 and 427 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code should have been altered by the learned Magistrate, 60^th Court, Kurla, Mumbai. And that order of framing charge dated 7.9.2015 is to be set aside directing that Charge under sections 307 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code is to be added. The applicant submitted that besides the accused persons, some other persons are also involved and criminal conspiracy is hatched against him and his family members. He further submitted that

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

revn.84.2017_901.doc

¶16

during the pendency of this case, another offence has taken plae and the police have not investigated the said offence. He, therefore, submitted that the R & P is to be called.

¶17

Learned Prosecutor submitted that on a private complaint filed by the applicant, in person, directions were issued to the police by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to investigate the matter. The police have investigated the matter and filed chargesheet. On the basis of the chargesheet, the trial Court has framed charges under sections 323, 324, 427 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

Perused the Petition; the prayers; the charge framed; the statement of Shivkumar, the medical papers and also perused the injury certificate indicating injury of bite on right palm, contusion mark over forehead, contusion over left hand near elbow and blood stains in nasal region.

¶19

As the applicant in person is certified as per the Office Report that the applicant would be in a position to assist the Court in deciding the matter, he is heard. However, at the time of hearing of this application, he started arguing on res judicata and doctrine

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

revn.84.2017_901.doc

¶22

of estoppel which are altogether irrelevant. So also, in my view, the order of framing of charge is found correct, in view of the medical certificates and the complaint. Hence, the charge is maintained. However, it is made clear that the trial Court is always empowerd to alter the charge, if evidence if brought on record by the prosecution to add or delete charges.

¶23

In view of the above, the Revision is dismissed.

¶24

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶25

Page 3 of 3

Santosh Kumar Mishra S/O Ghanshyam Mishra v. Parmeshwar Bacchu Tiwari and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Mishra S/O Ghanshyam Mishra v. Parmeshwar Bacchu Tiwari and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Henry Samuel Jacob Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh Pandurang Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Tanaji Raghunath Mate and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manish Krishna Kalburgi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ananda Arjun Bhalekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Virendra Prasad Feku Yadav Vs Hiralal Vishwanath Gupta and Anr.