Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.773 of 2012 (2) dt.31-01-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.773 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Bijay Kumar Singh Son Of Late Chandra Bhushan Prasad Singh Village Gaura, P.S. Teghra, District Begusarai 2. Mirtunjay Gautam Son Of Late Chandra Kant Prasad Singh Village Gaura, P.S. Teghra, District Begusarai .... .... Petitioneres Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajoy Kumar Thakur For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN) 02. 31-01-2012 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 16.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No. 626 of 2008, whereby the application filed on behalf of the prosecution for amendment of charge by incorporation of [STATUTE] as well as in relation to the place of occurrence, has been allowed. The case instituted on the statement of the first informant Janardan Choudhary giving rise to Teghra P.S. Case No. 207 of 2002 alleges that his son Ajeet kumar Choudhary had become traceless since after he had left the village for going to Barauni and that he was carrying Rs. 3,000/-. It was also mentioned that earlier the son of the informant had altercation with the petitioners herein as also some others and who had Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.773 of 2012 (2) dt.31-01-2012 assaulted the son of the informant on earlier occasion and had also threatened him. The Police upon investigation submitted final form as against which the informant filed a protest petition and which was registered as Complaint Case No. 63C of 2006. The matter was committed to trial giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 626 of 2008. It is the case of the petitioner that the charges in the present case were framed on 17.5.2010 whereafter the matter was fixed for production of prosecution witnesses and that it is at this stage that on 19.8.2010, a petition was filed on behalf of the prosecution regarding alteration in the place of occurrence as also for incorporation of the charges under [STATUTE] against the accused. The said application having been allowed by the impugned order dated 16.12.2011, hence the present application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order had committed an infirmity in allowing the alteration in the place of occurrence as also incorporation of charge under [STATUTE] . The learned court below after considering the rival contentions and taking notice of the fact that in the original charge the place of occurrence had been mentioned as village Gaura whereas the dead body of the victim was found in Sokhara Mirchaiya Chowk and which necessitated the alteration of charge insofar as the place of occurrence is concerned as also required an incorporation of charge under [STATUTE] inasmuch as an attempt was made to disappear the evidence, was pleased to allow the prayer in the light of the provisions found under Section 212 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 216 thereof. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.773 of 2012 (2) dt.31-01-2012 petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, this Court is of the opinion that the objection raised by the petitioner is wholly misplaced and that the order passed by the learned court below does not suffer from any infirmity requiring interference therewith. For the reasons aforesaid, the application is dismissed. It goes without saying that since after alteration of charge the learned court below would proceed in accordance with law. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 201

Statute Text:
Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence committed, or giving false information touching it to screen the offender, If a capital offence. Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false; if a capital offence — shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years imprisonment — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.