ARUN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate for the applicants and learned APP for non applicant No.1/State

(2.) In this criminal application, the applicants/accused have questioned the correctness of the order dtd. 14/2/2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Chandur Bazar, District Amravati whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to allow the application made by the informant for alternation of charge framed under Sec. 324 to Sec. 326 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The application under Sec. 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was made by the complainant. It was not made by the prosecutor. Learned Magistrate has recorded in his order that x-ray report of the injuries sustained by the informant indicates that he had sustained fracture. The x-ray reports are on record at Exh. 46 & 47. It is the case of the prosecution that the injuries were caused by stick and iron pipe. Learned Magistrate initially framed the charge under Sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecutor, for the reasons best known to him, did not either apply for alternation of charge or made submissions before the learned Magistrate to that effect. The informant, who had sustained the fracture, applied before the learned Magistrate under Sec. 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Magistrate has observed in the order that the informant had sustained the fracture. It has also been observed in the order that these injuries were caused by dangerous weapon or means.