JASVINDEDR SAINI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIR No. 765/2007 was registered against the Petitioners for offences punishable under Section 498A/304B/406/34 IPC on the death of one Ms. Chandni on a complaint lodged by her father Shri Ajay Gautam. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed for offences punishable under Section 498A/304B/406/34 IPC against Petitioner Nos.1 to 4. Subsequently, on the formal arrest of Petitioner Nos. 5 to 8 supplementary charge-sheet was filed for offences under Section 498A/304B/406/302 IPC. The matter was heard for framing of charge, and vide order dated 18 th March, 2009 Learned Additional Sessions Judge held that there was prima facie evidence of offences punishable under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC against the Petitioners and thus directed framing of the charges. Vide this order the Learned Additional Sessions Judge also held that there was no material evidence for framing of charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused persons. The trial continued and as many as 18 witnesses were examined. On 22 nd November, 2010 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajbir @ Raju & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana SLP No. 9507/2010 directed as under:

(2.) In view of these directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide the impugned order dated 23 rd February, 2011 after hearing the arguments on the issue of amendment of charge, learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the additional charge under Section 302 IPC against the Petitioners. This order is impugned in the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the directions dated 22 nd November, 2010 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were non est in law and the additional charge under Section 302 IPC could not have been framed without following due process of law. It is contended that the Learned Trial Court had no jurisdiction to review its earlier order and amend the charge by adding Section 302 IPC especially when it had returned a finding vide order dated 18 th March, 2009 that there was no material for framing of charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused persons and the order passed is contrary to the principles of natural justice. The order dated 18 th March, 2009 was not challenged by the State before the High Court. Further the charge was amended at the fag end of the trial, thus causing prejudice to the Petitioner. It is further contended that amendment of the charge could have taken place under Section 216 Cr.P.C. only if during trial additional material comes on record against the accused persons.