KIRPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REJOINDER affidavit filed by the revisionist is taken on record. Heard Sri A.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri N.S. Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 3.12.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Lalitpur framing charges against the revisionist under Sections 308, 504, 506 I.P.C.

(2.) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that from a perusal of the medical examination report as well as other materials collected during investigation, no offence under Section 308 I.P.C. is made out against the revisionist and the trial court has committed gross illegality in framing charges against the revisionist for the said offence. He further submitted that the ingredients of offence under Section 308 I.P.C. is not fulfilled, hence the trial of the revisionist for the aforesaid offence is wholly unwarranted. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bishan Singh & another v. State reported in 2008 (1) JIC 973 (SC) as well as a judgment of this Court in the case of Banwari Lal & others v. State of U.P. reported in 2012 (2) JIC 218 (All.). On the strength of aforesaid two cases, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned order framing charges against the revisionist should be quashed.

(3.) THE case laws cited by the learned counsel for the revisionist clearly show that in both the cases, offence under Section 308 I.P.C. was made out or not was adjudicated after the trial had concluded and when the court, on the basis of material available before it, found that the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. could not be made out against the accused persons, altered the charge and convicted the accused accordingly. Hence the revisionist cannot be given benefit of said judgments at the time of framing of charges. Thus, the order framing charge at this stage cannot be said to be illegal and no interference is called for by this Court in the present revision. The revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, granted earlier stands vacated.