(1.) It is odd that there is so little guidance in the cases as to the considerations which ought to weigh with a court when deciding what charges should be framed in a criminal case. May be, that is because the general run of cases poses no problem. Yet, there can be complexities as is borne out by this petition for revision, which has arisen in the following circumstances.
(2.) The nine respondents are being jointly tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in respect of an incident which occurred on 30th April 1980. The case against them appears sufficiently from the first information recorded by the police. Jai Narain, who is the petitioner here, was the informant. A free translation of what he said is as under :
(3.) On 9th March 1981, the Additional Sessions Judge framed three joint charges against the respondents. In all of them it was alleged that the offence charged had been committed in furtherance of their common intention, and section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was recited. The first was a charge under section 304 Part I for 'culpable homicide not' amouiting to murd er by causing the death of Ami Lal'. .The second was under se Section 307 for attempting to murder Ghhota Ram. And. the third, was uncer sections 323 and 324 for having voluntarily caused' simple hurt to Jai Narain by means of a sharp edged and blunt weapons'. Before framing these charges, the matter was fully argued and the judge made a reasoned order.
ABOUT US "REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD." is a Company incorporated in 1991 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Since its inception to 1995, the Company was busy in carrying out the activities related to various Banks' Job Work..
Read More
Sales: sales@the-laws.com
Support: info@the-laws.com
8000853936
9376168072
27, 4TH FLOOR, Agrawal Center, Ashram Road, Income Tax, Ahmadabad 380014.
LOGIN