IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.R No.145 of 2004 Date of decision : July 18, 2008 Yash Pal and another …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Pt. Om Prakash, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Revision petitioners are aggrieved by the order, dated 1.7.2004, of the Sessions Court, whereby after the recording of evidence of the prosecution, examination of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the defence evidence, charge has been ordered to be altered, under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Revision petitioners were initially charged with offences, punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 315 of the Indian Penal Code, for allegedly subjecting deceased Meena Kumari, wife of petitioner Yash Pal, to cruelty and committing offence of dowry death and also offence of miscarriage of pregnancy of said Meena Kumari. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 4. After the recording of the evidence, as aforesaid, trial Court, on an application moved by the prosecution, ordered the alteration of charge. It ordered that in addition to the charge on the aforesaid three counts, the revision petitioners be charged with the offence of murder, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, also. 5. Two submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. His first submission is that the prosecution applied for amendment of charge so that it could fill the lacunae in its evidence, as after amendment of charge, it was to get a fresh chance to lead evidence. However, learned counsel has not pointed out, as to what lacunae are there in the prosecution evidence, which the prosecution wanted to fill getting the charge altered. Furthermore, it is not the prosecution, which has altered the charge. Prosecution only applied to the Court and the Court, after due application of mind, has passed a speaking order for altering the charge. Trial Court has observed that there are statements of the father, the brother and the mother of the deceased to the effect that there were injuries on the person of the deceased, which indicated that she was killed, by use of criminal force. Trial Court has also noticed the report of postmortem examination, per which the cause of death was fracture and dislocation of cervical vertebra C-1, C-2, C-3. In these circumstances, the contention that the charge has been got altered by the prosecution to fill some lacunae in its evidence, cannot be accepted. …3… 6. Next submission made by the learned counsel is that even though the prosecution applied for framing charge of murder, in the alternative, for the charge of 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, the trial Court has framed the charge, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, in addition to the charge earlier framed. This, in my view, also does not make any difference, because ultimately, if found guilty, the revision petitioners would be convicted of only one offence, either under Section 304-B or under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. For the foregoing reasons, revision petition is dismissed. July 18, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J