RANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Lalit Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State. None responds for respondent no. 2 despite service of notice.

(2.) By means of this criminal revision, a judgment and order dtd. 22/11/2022 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Mathura in S.C. No. 740 of 2022 (State vs. Jeetu @ Jitendra) arising out of Case Crime No. 57 of 2022, under Ss. 323, 504, 304 part-1 IPC, Police Station Farah, District Mathura has been challenged.

(3.) The relevant facts are as below:- An FIR naming Jeetu, Jagveer and certain others was filed by the first informant (the instant revisionist herein) alleging that his brother Manverndra was playing a match with the accused persons; during the match some altercation ensued between the two sides; the accused persons Jeetu and Jagveer attacked his brother Manvendra with a cricketing bat on his head and he later died of the injury sustained by him; the session trial began on the basis of a chargesheet admittedly filed under Ss. 302, 323, 504 IPC; the learned session court framed a charge under Ss. 302/34, 323/34 and 504 IPC, thereafter on the basis of an application moved on behalf of the accused persons that no offence under Sec. 302 IPC is made out and that the charge may be converted into one under Ss. 323, 504 and 34 IPC, the learned session judge heard both the sides and came to the conclusion that prima facie offence under Sec. 323, 504, 304 part-1 IPC is made out and fixed the case for framing of charge under those Sec. only.