HINCHH LAL MISHRA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed this criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the order dated 28.03.2019 passed in Session Trial No. 41/2017 by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Teonthar, District Rewa whereby the learned trial Court while amending the charge under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. again framed charge for the offence under Sections 376 (2) (), 506 (Part-II) of the IPC and under Section 5 ([2])/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

(2.) Fact giving rise to this revision, in short, are that the minor prosecutrix lodged a report against the applicant and Crime No. 193/2017 had been registered against the applicant. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. The trial Court in S.T. No. 41/2017 framed charge against the applicant on 06.12.2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 376 (2) ([1]), 506 (Part-II) of the IPC and under Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act and proceeded for trial. Applicant examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and case was fixed for defence evidence. Vide impugned order, the trial Court again amended the charge under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. and altered the charge previously framed under Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act into under Section 5 ()/6 of the POCSO Act. Plea of the applicant also recorded on the amended charge.

(3.) Being aggrieved by that amendment under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant has filed this criminal revision on the ground that after recording the statement of all material prosecution witnesses, learned trial Court committed illegality in amending the charge. Also raised further ground that the trial Court on the basis of an application filed by the prosecution under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. called for scholar register of prosecutrix. Prosecution witnesses have not supported the story of the prosecution. Many contradictions or omissions are found in the statement in spite of that the learned trial Court amended the charge, even though not having a sufficient ground for amending the charge, therefore, he prays for setting aside the impugned order order dated 28.03.2019 and discharge the applicant from all of the charges.