DHARMENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 17. 9. 08 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Kanpur Dehat in criminal revision no. 146/08 this revision has been filed. By the impugned order the revisional court did not agree with the order of the trial court and converted the charge under Section 326, IPC framed by the trial court to a charge under Section 324, IPC. It appears that the accused persons were charged in the trial by the Magistrate under Sections 147, 148, 323, 336, 326, 504, IPC. Accused persons, thereafter, moved an application for alteration of the charge. That application was rejected by the Magistrate on the ground that as nothing changed after the framing of the charges, hence, there was no worth in the application. Thereafter, the order of the Magistrate dated 21. 7. 08 was challenged in revision and the revisional court changed the charge under Section 326, IPC into a charge under Section 324, IPC and directed accordingly for the trial. Heard Mr. P. K. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist-complainant, learned AGA and perused the record. It has been argued by Mr. Singh that as nothing has changed after the framing of the charges and the accused persons had an opportunity of hearing at that time, therefore, there could be no occasion to change the charge by the revisional court. I do feel that the argument of Mr. Singh is against the provisions of Section 216, Cr. P. C. It lays down that the charge can be altered at any stage of the trial and that was the thing which the Sessions Court did. Now, the question arises as to whether the Sessions Court was right in altering the charge. In that regard it would be pertinent to see the definitions of Section 324 and 326, IPC. Section 324, IPC relates to "voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means". This also includes the corrosive substance. Section 326, IPC relates to "voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means". Thus, it appears that if the injury was not grievous, Section 326, IPC cannot be attracted. It appears from the injury report of the victim that injuries were found to be simple in nature and that being so there could be no propriety to frame a charge under Section 326, IPC as done by the Magistrate and therefore, the Sessions Court was perfectly justified in altering this charge into a charge under Section 324, IPC. I, in view of the above, do not find any impropriety in the order passed by the Sessions Court. Consequently, this revision has no worth and is dismissed. .