AMRIK SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging order dated 3.8.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Derabassi whereby the application seeking amendment of charge was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the doctor, who had medico legally examined injured Babu Singh, had specifically stated that injury No.1 was grievous in nature and was caused by a sharp edged weapon. Hence, the charge was liable to be framed against the accused under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short).

(2.) LEARNED State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. In the present case, charge was framed against the accused under Sections 323/ 324/ 379/ 435/ 148/ 149 IPC. PW-1 Achhar Singh deposed as under:- On 7.6.1999 at 6.15 am I examined Babu Singh son of Wariam Singh, aged 65 years village Ranimajra, Tehsil Rajpura, P.S. Lalru and examined the following injuries:-

(3.) THE application moved by the prosecution, whereby it was prayed that charge be also framed against the accused under Section 326 IPC, was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the application had been filed at a belated stage. THE fact that the application was filed at a belated stage could not have been taken in consideration by the learned trial Court in the interest of justice. In case offence under Section 326 IPC was made out against the accused, the trial Court was under a legal obligation to frame charge against the accused even if during investigation, offence under Section 326 IPC had been deleted. Even at the stage of arguments, in case the Court comes to a conclusion that the accused are prima facie guilty of an offence qua which charge had not been framed against them, even at that stage, the trial Court is bound to amend the charge and thereafter proceed further with the trial in accordance with law. Merely because the application for amendment of charge had been filed by the prosecution at a belated stage does not absolve the trial Court of its legal duty and responsibility. In case the charge is not framed against the accused under the relevant provision, the accused cannot be convicted qua the said offence despite there being evidence in that regard. Although the doctor has also stated in his cross-examination that possibility of injury No.1 being friendly in nature cannot be ruled out but the said fact was not to be looked into at the stage of amendment of the charge. Court is only required to see as to whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused or not. THE evidence was not liable to be discussed in detail at the time of framing or amendment of the charge.