Criminal Revision No.2415 of 2008(O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: November 18, 2008 Rajesh alias Raju alias Chikna & another .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr.K.S.Nalwa, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. It may sound strange to notice that when the case was fixed for arguments, charges framed against the petitioners have been amended. The petitioners have filed this revision petition to impugn the said order. The petitioners were charge sheeted for commission of an offence under Sections 364, 149, 302, 201, 120-B IPC. Pleading Criminal Revision No.2415 of 2008(O&M) : 2 : that there is no evidence on record to connect the petitioners with any of the alleged offences, they moved an application for their discharge from all the charges framed against them. This application was opposed by the prosecution by pointing out that there is sufficient evidence available for the offences for which the petitioners were charged. It was further pleaded that in case any wrong charge has been framed, it can be altered at any time before pronouncement of the judgment. Plea further was that if there is no evidence, then the petitioners would be acquitted by the court and they cannot seek their discharge at the stage where the proceedings had reached. The court, while dismissing the application filed by the petitioners for their discharge, observed that there was some ambiguity in framing of the charge and accordingly in exercise of its power under Section 216 Cr.P.C., altered the charge under Sections 364 and 302 both read with Section 120-B IPC against all the accused, except Neetu Nihal and further framed the charge under Section 120-B IPC against all the accused including Neetu Nihal. However, no evidence was found for the charges under Sections 141 read with Section 149 and under Section 201 read with Section 120-B IPC. The application for discharge was filed on the ground that charge under Section 120-B IPC is not specific with regard to time, place and the accused persons. It was also pleaded that the charge under Section 364 IPC is not made out from the prosecution case as the accused had called the deceased on telephone. It was accordingly pleaded that there was no criminal inducement or criminal force applied. It was further submitted that no case for an Criminal Revision No.2415 of 2008(O&M) : 3 : offence under Section 120-B read with 302 IPC would also be made out as there was no pre-meeting of mind among the accused persons. The legal position in regard to framing of charge is well settled. The charge can be framed on the basis of prima-facie evidence and minute analysis of the same is not needed at the time of framing charge. The challan in this case was initially presented against three accused, namely, Dharmender, Neetu Nihal and Kuldeep. They were charged under Sections 148, 302, 201 read with Section 149 IPC. Neetu Nihal was charged for an offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC. Subsequently, a supplementary challan was presented against four more accused persons and, therefore, the charges were re-framed against all the accused on 6.2.2006. Vijay @ Koki, another accused, was subsequently arrested and challaned by the police. This necessitated re-framing of charge against all the eight accused persons for offences under Sections 363, 148, 302, 201 and 120-B IPC. These orders were never challenged by the petitioners before any court. The petitioners faced prosecution and their statements have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the petitioners have examined four witnesses in their defence. Written arguments have also been filed, when the application for discharge was filed by the accused-petitioners. It is under these circumstances that the court while rejecting the application for discharge has considered it expedient to alter the charge as already noted. The plea that there is no evidence for framing a charge under Section 364 IPC at this stage really can not reasonably be Criminal Revision No.2415 of 2008(O&M) : 4 : maintained. The prosecution evidence stands concluded. The defence evidence has also been recorded. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not raised any serious objection in regard to powers of the court to alter the charge at this stage, but has mainly confined his submission to say that there is no material to frame a charge under Section 364 IPC. Apprehension of the petitioners is that alteration of a charge at this stage would prejudice their case inasmuch as, the court has obviously expressed its final view and their conviction may follow. Since there is no grievance made against the alteration of a charge, the impugned order would not call for any interference so far as the action of the court in altering the charges is concerned. It is noticed that the court is conscious of the fact of prejudice and has restrained itself from making any observation in regard to the evidence which has come on record. The court has observed that it is doing so, lest it may prejudice the interest of either party. Court has also observed that at the stage of altering the charge, the prima-facie evidence is to be seen and the court is not to sift and weigh the evidence. Thus, the apprehension of the petitioners that the alteration of a charge at this stage to frame a charge under Section 364 IPC may lead to their conviction and prejudice their case is not made out and cannot be accepted. The court has clearly observed that the charge can be framed on the basis of a grave suspicion, whereas standard to record acquittal or conviction would be entirely different where the court would sift the total evidence and weigh the same in the light of law. The court has also observed that the prosecution has already led evidence on the Criminal Revision No.2415 of 2008(O&M) : 5 : charges for which the petitioners had defended themselves and as such the alteration of a charge at this stage would not prejudice their defence. The petitioners have been given liberty to conclude their defence evidence. Since the evidence of both the sides is already recorded and the petitioners chose not to impugn the order framing the charge against them at the initial stage, no case for interfering in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction at this stage is made out. If there is no evidence, the petitioners will be well entitled to so plead before the court at the time of final decision of the case on merits. No case for discharge of the petitioners would be made out. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction at this stage. Dismissed. November 18, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE