SUKHRAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MRS. Saroj Bala, J. This application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. moved for quashing of impugned order dated 23-11-2006 passed by the Special Judge (S. C. and S. T.) Act, District Banda in sessions trial No. III of 2005, State v. Ashok Singh and Ors. under Sections 323/34, 325/34, 302/34, 504 and 506, I. P. C. and Section 3 (2) (5) of S. C. /s. T. Act whereby framing the charges against the applicants for the offences under Sections 302/34, 323/34, 325, 504, 506, I. P. C and 3 (2) (5) of S. C. and S. T. Act.

(2.) HEARD Shri Rajeev Lochan Shukla holding brief of Shri Mohit Singh, learned Counsel for the applicants, learned A. G. A. and have perused the record.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that no case under Section 302, I. P. C. is made out against the applicants even if the entire prosecution case is taken on its face value the prosecution case does not travel beyond Section 304, I. P. C. THE learned Counsel convassed that no intention to cause death is attributable to applicants. THE submission of the learned Counsel was that the incident had taken place all of a sudden and there was no premeditation. According to the learned Counsel the injured Ram Ashery an old man died as proper medical treatment was not provided to him. THE learned Counsel argued that there is cross version the First Information Report of which was registered as N. C. R. No. 57 of 2005 under Section 323, 504 and 506 I. P. C and persons on the side of applicants also suffered injuries. Another argument pressed into service was that under Section 221, Cr. P. C. the learned trial Court had jurisdiction to frame alternate charge under Section 304, I. P. C. THE contention of the learned Counsel was that the burden of proving that the case is covered within the exceptions as specified under Section 300, I. P. C. lies on the applicants by virtue of Section 105 of the Evidence Act. According to the learned Counsel the provisions of fourth exception of Section 300, I. P. C. are applicable to the present case and charge under Section 304, I. P. C. should have been framed instead of Section 302, I. P. C.