MAHESH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 14.6.2014 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior (M.P), in Sessions Trial No.214/2013 whereby the application filed by the applicants under section 216 of Crimial P.C. for amendment in the charges framed against the applicants under sections 307 and 450 of the Penal Code has been rejected.

(2.) In brief, the relevant facts of the case are that the complainant and applicant No. 1 are real brothers and applicant No.2 is the son of the applicant No. 1. There was old dispute regarding the land between them. On account of this dispute on 23.10.2012 at near about 7.15 pm applicants along with other coaccused persons Rinku Yadav, Sikandar Yadav and Anil Yadav having armed with fire-arms and lathi entered into the house of the complainant and broke the of window glasses and abused the complainant and his son and then complainant and his son with a view to save themselves entered into the room of the house and closed the door but before they could enter into the room, applicants fired gunshot on them by targeting them. But they escaped with narrow margin thereafter applicants and other co-accused persons after giving threatening to kill complainant and his son, fled away from the spot. Thereafter, the complainant immediately went to the Police Station, Gwalior and lodged FIR of the incident on which Crime No.467/12 was registered by the police Station for the offences under sections 307,147,148,149,450 and 427 of the IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior and the Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Gwalior, which was transferred to the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior. On 20.3.2014, Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior framed the charges against the applicants for the offence under sections 307,427 and 450 of the IPC. Thereafter, on 5.8.2015 on behalf of the applicants an application under section 216 of Crimial P.C. was filed, stating that on the basis of charge-sheet, charges under sections 307 and 450 of the Penal Code are not made out and only offence under sections 294, 427 and 451 of the Penal Code is made out. Accordingly, charges be amended. This application was rejected by the impugned order by holding that prima facie offence under sections 450 and 307 of the Penal Code are made out against the applicants. Therefore, there is no need to amend the charges.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the aforesaid impugned order have been assailed in this petition on the ground that the order of the learned Lower Court is illegal arbitrary, erroneous and against the settled principles of law. The statement of the complainant and other witnesses do not disclose that any attempt to murder was made by the applicants as during the investigation, neither any bullet mark was found nor any part of bullet recovered from the spot. Therefore, allegation regarding the firing of gunshot on the complainant and his son in the room is false. The story is firing of gunshot to kill the complainant and his son with intention to commit their murder is not plausible. Therefore, applicants cannot be prosecuted for the offence under sections 307 and 450 of the IPC. Hence, the impugned order be set aside and direction be given to the learned Lower Court to amend the charges in order to secure the ends of justice.