KAMAL WALDIYA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused / revisionists have preferred present revision assailing the order dated 03.10.2015 passed by Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2012 (State Vs. Kamal Waldiya and another) under Section 498A, 304B, 306 IPC. Initially, in the charge, date of incident was mentioned as 13.09.2012 and evidence was led by the prosecution. Thereafter, it was brought to the notice of the court that date of incident was wrongly mentioned as "13.09.2012" instead of "19.12.2011" in the charge. Having acquired the knowledge about wrong mentioning of date of incident in the charge, learned Sessions Judge was pleased to pass impugned order dated 03.10.2015 for correcting the date of incident in the charges as "19.12.2011" in place of "13.09.2012".

(2.) Feeling aggrieved, accused / revisionists have preferred present revision.

(3.) A combine reading of Sections 215, 216 and 217 would make it clear that no error either about the offence or the particulars in the charge, shall vitiate the trial if parties knew all the correct facts about the offence and particulars of offence. It further demonstrates that court at any stage may alter or amend the charge. If charge is altered or amended, court may recall the witnesses, on the request of either of the parties for examination on altered or amended or added charge.