JITENDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved against the order dated 18.08.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla/Trial Court, modifying/altering the charge against the petitioner, instant revision petition has been preferred.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents appended with the petition.

(3.) It is not in dispute that on 04.08.2014, learned Trial Court held that no case was made out against the accused persons, namely Sant Ram Shandil, Sant Ram Tanwar and Sher Singh Negi. These persons were discharged. Criminal Revision No.358 of 2014 filed by the State, challenging this order, has been dismissed by this Court on 23.09.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the other co-accused persons stood discharged, then there is no point for framing charge under Section 120B IPC against the petitioner. Primarily, aggrieved against the alleged framing of additional charge against the petitioner under Section 120B IPC, instant petition has been preferred. However, this contention is not required to be raised at all as the learned Trial Court has not at all agreed to add charge under Section 120B IPC against the sole accused, i.e. petitioner. The relevant observations of the learned Trial Court in this regard are as under:-