RAKESH KUMAR LUTHRA Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned trial Court allowing the application of the prosecution filed under Section 216 Cr.P.C. with a prayer that the charges against the petitioner be altered.

(2.) It is alleged by the prosecution that on 13 th May, 2006, a report was lodged by Amrik Singh at Police Station, Haroli alleging that at around 9.35 p.m. when he was discharging his duties on the Santokhgarh barrier, one Opel Corsa Car bearing registration No. PB-07K-0906 approached the barrier and when he asked to stop it, the driver accelerated the car and ran away from there. Thereafter another car being driven by Raman Bali came there and the offender was given a chase and was apprehended in the bazaar. During this brawl, the assailant is supposed to have taken out a pistol from his pocket and fired at Raman Bali. The petitioner was charged for offences under Sections 308, 320 and 334 I.P.C. and Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act. During the course of the trial, 17 witnesses were cited and examined. An application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. was filed praying for alteration of the charge. The averment made in the application is:

(3.) The learned court holds that on the evidence of PW16 Amrik Singh, who has lodged the complaint, the petitioner along with his co-accused did not pay toll tax but fled away from there. They were chased and intercepted in Santokhgarh where there was a scuffle and purported firing etc. Thereafter, according to the learned trial court, the evidence disclosed by the present accused-Rakesh Kumar was charged under Section 307/34 I.P.C. which is not made out from the final report under Section 173. He is supposed to have been prima facie found involved in preparation of false documents and violation of the provision of Section 47 and 48 of the Arms Rules, 1963. Therefore, charges under Sections 465 I.P.C. and 30 of the Arms Act read with Rules 47 and 48 of the Indian Arms Rules were framed against the petitioner. In these circumstances, all witnesses of the prosecution were summoned for re-cross-examination. The order also records that the accused persons have filed application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. and stated that according to the evidence on the record, charges under Section 307 I.P.C. was not made out and therefore, they could not be tried for such offences.