Crl.Rev.No.2335 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev.No.2335 of 2008 Date of Decision: 21.1.2009 Nachhattar Singh and another .....Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab ....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.Karamjit Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Challenge in this revision petition is to an order dated 17.9.2008, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhatinda, directing the framing of charges under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code and in the alternative under Sections 306/201 of the Indian Penal Code, as also the order of even date framing charges accordingly. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. A prima facie appraisal of the facts, the provisions of Sections 300,302, 107 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code suggests that the trial Court may not be justified in framing alternative charges under Section 306 read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code with the main charges framed under Section 302 read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code clearly postulates that Crl.Rev.No.2335 of 2008 2 culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, whereas abetment of suicide necessarily involves instigating a person to take his own life. A Court is empowered by Section 221 of the Code to frame charges in the alternative, if a single act or a series of acts is of such a nature that it is doubtful as to which of several offences have been committed. While framing alternative charges, the trial court is required to consider the nature of the offence, the facts set out in support thereof and thereafter record a brief order in terms of Section 221 of the Code. A court is also at liberty, in view of the provisions of Section 216 of the Code to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the trial court has framed alternative charges in a mechanical manner, without recording its satisfaction as required by Section 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and without considering the provisions of Sections 300, 302, 107 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In this view of the matter, the revision petition is allowed, the order dated 17.9.2008 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda, to consider the matter afresh by taking into consideration the facts available on record, the statutory provisions referred to herein above and pass a fresh order in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove. Parties are directed to appear before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda on 25.2.2009. 21.1.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE Crl.Rev.No.2335 of 2008 3