RAJESH KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The applicant has challenged the order dated 15.2.2012 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T. No. 192/2011, whereby the application under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

(2.) The prosecution's case, in short is that, a charge sheet was filed against the applicant and other accused persons, which was duly committed to the Sessions Court and the trial Court had framed the charges under Sections 302 and 302 /34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the M.P. Protection of Debtors Act. After sometime, the prosecution had filed some documents in the case i.e. merg intimation, FIR and case diary statements of Kiran Raikwar and Manoj in the trial Court and thereafter, the applicant had moved an application to discharge him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the submissions made by the parties, dismissed the application on 15.2.2012.

(3.) After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be apparent that the entire case depends upon the circumstantial evidence. The trial Court has framed the charges as mentioned above after considering the prosecution's documents and thereafter, no revision was filed against the order of framing of the charges. The documents filed by the prosecution are of no such nature so that the framing of the charges may be considered again. The learned counsel for the applicant mainly depends upon the law laid by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of "Harveer Singh Vs. State of M.P.",2012 1 MPWN 24 that before passing the judgment, the trial Court can modify and enhance the charges framed against the accused. The Provision of Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. also gives a power to remove the mistake committed in framing of the charges.