Patna High Court - Orders
The State Of Bihar Through District ... vs Md. Shahabuddin & Ors. on 18 April, 2014
Author: Birendra Prasad Verma
Bench: Birendra Prasad Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.512 of 2013
======================================================
The State Of Bihar through District Magistrate, Siwan
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Md. Shahabuddin, son of Shaikh Hasibullah, resident of Village
Pratappur, P.S. Hussainganj, District- Siwan, at Present in Siwan Jail,
Siwan
2. Raj Kumar Sah, son of Triloki Sah, resident of Kasera Toli, P.S. Siwan
Town, Distt. Siwan
3. Munna Mian @ Sonu @ Arif Hussain, son of Maqbool Hussain,
resident of Village Tetaria, P.S. Hussainganj, District- Siwan
4. Shaikh Aslam, son of Shaikh Saliq, resident of Kaseratoli, P.S. Siwan
Town, District- Siwan
.... .... Opposite party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, AAG-2
Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, Addl.P.P.
Mr. Hemant Lall, Advocate
For the Opposite Party No.1 : Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Advocate
For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Uday Bhan Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party No. 3: Mr. Shoeb Alam, Advocate
Mr. Zeyaul Hoda, Advocate
For the Opposite Party No. 4 : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Humayu Ahmad Khan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA
CAV ORDER
12 18-04-2014In this second round of litigation before this Court at the stage of Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 2 Patna High Court CR. REV. No.512 of 2013 (12) dt.18-04-2014 2 / 17 (in short „Cr.P.C.‟), the petitioner-the State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Siwan, has filed the present Cr. Revision application under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated 15.3.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st -cum Special Judge, Siwan Jail Court, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 158 of 2010, whereby, the petition dated 9.8.2012 filed on behalf of the prosecution under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for amending the charge and for adding the charges against the accused-opposite parties under Sections 302,201 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code has been rejected.
2. Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Advocate General No.2 and Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-the State of Bihar, have strenuously argued the matter and have submitted that the impugned order dated 15.3.2013 passed by the learned trial court is contrary to the scheme and scope of Section 216 Cr.P.C. According to them, the learned trial court has erred in rejecting the petition filed on behalf of the prosecution for addition of the charges under Sections 302,201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, particularly in view of the evidence of P.W.1, Kalawati Devi, P.W. 4 Chandkeshwar Prasad, P.W. 5 Nitish Raj and P.W. 6 Rajiv Roshan. They have contended that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is not in consonance with the earlier order dated 18.12.2012 passed by this Court in Cr. Revision No. 1030 of 2012 ( Annexure-6), therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. They have further submitted that in view of the materials available on record, the charges framed against the accused-opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 are 3 Patna High Court CR. REV. No.512 of 2013 (12) dt.18-04-2014 3 / 17 fit to be amended in exercise of powers under Section 216 Cr.P.C and they are liable to be further charged for the offences under Sections 302,201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It would be relevant to mention here that a voluminous written submissions on behalf of the petitioner annexing copies of large number of judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court and some other High Courts was also filed, after service of its copy on the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.
3. Per contra, Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1, Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 4, Mr. Shoeb Alam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.3 and several other counsels appearing on behalf of the opposite parties have vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner in the present application. All of them, in one voice, have supported the impugned order dated 15.3.2013 passed by the learned trial court in the aforesaid Sessions Trial No. 158 of 2010 and have contended that in the given factual matrix of the instant criminal trial, there is no justification for amending the charge at this belated stage. They have also placed strong reliance on the various paragraphs of the earlier order dated 18.12.2012 (Annexure-6) passed by this Court, whereby the matter was remitted back to the learned trial court for passing a fresh order in the light of observations and directions made therein. It was also pointed out on behalf of the accused-opposite parties that admittedly, the corpus delecti of the two abducted persons have not been recovered and, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly refused to amend the charge by adding sections 302,201 and 120B of the 4 Patna High Court CR. REV. No.512 of 2013 (12) dt.18-04-2014 4 / 17 Indian Penal Code. It would be relevant to mention here that on behalf of the accused-opposite party Nos. 1,2 and 3 also, a voluminous written submissions accompanied by copies of some of the judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court as also some other High Courts was filed in order to buttress the points raised on their behalf in the present proceeding.
4. In order to consider the rival submissions on behalf of the parties, it would be necessary to notice certain material facts with respect to the criminal trial pending against the accused opposite parties.
5. It is not under dispute that one Kalawati Devi (P.W. 1) wife of Chandkeshwar Prasad ( P.W. 4) lodged a criminal case on 16.8.2004 with the allegations that her two sons, namely, Girish Kumar alias Niku and Satish Kumar alias Sonu were assaulted by the accused persons and both of them have been abducted from their shops in the Siwan town by the accused persons in order to murder them. It was alleged that shops situate near the Bus Stand, Siwan were put on fire. It was also alleged that both the abducted persons have not returned and are still traceless. On the basis of her fardbeyan (statement), Siwan Mufassil P.S.Case No.131 of 2004 dated 16.8.2004 under sections 341,323,380,435,364/34 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted by the police against the F.I.R. named two accused and five unknown miscreants. The aforesaid F.I.R. lodged by P.W. 1 Kalawati Devi has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the present Cr. Revision application.
6. It is also not under dispute that on close of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused- opposite party Nos.1 to 4 for the offences under Section 5 Patna High Court CR. REV. No.512 of 2013 (12) dt.18-04-2014 5 / 17 341,323,380,436,364 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. A copy of the charge sheet has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to the Cr. Revision application. After cognizance having been taken by the learned Magistrate, the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial of the accused persons, giving rise to aforesaid Sessions Trial No. 158 of 2010.
7. Admittedly, on 4.6.2010, charges under Sections 120B and 364A of the Indian Penal Code were framed against all the accused opposite party Nos. 1 to 4. However, the accused- opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 have further been charged for the offences under Sections 341,323,364,364A,436 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. Copies of the charges framed against the accused-opposite parties have been brought on record as Annexure-3 series.
8. Indisputably, recording of evidence of P.Ws. commenced on 1.7.2010. The prosecution has examined altogether 10 P.Ws. whereafter the prosecution evidence was closed. After complying the mandatory requirements under the Cr.P.C., arguments commenced for disposal of the aforesaid Sessions Trial No. 158 of 2010. While the arguments were still going on, a petition under Section 216 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the prosecution on 9.8.2012 with a prayer for addition of charges under Sections 302,201 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused-opposite parties. The petition dated 9.8.2012 filed on behalf of the prosecution has been brought on record as Annexure-5 to the Cr. Revision Application.
9. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of evidence of P.Ws. 1, 4, 5 and 6, both the abducted persons namely, Satish Kumar alias Sonu and Girish Kumar alias Niku 6 Patna High Court CR. REV. No.512 of 2013 (12) dt.18-04-2014 6 / 17 have now been murdered and their murder took place at village Pratapur i.e. the village home of accused opposite party No.1. It is also the case of the prosecution that the dead bodies of the aforesaid two abducted persons have been made traceless. In view of the aforesaid evidence/materials, the petition dated 9.8.2012 was filed for amendment of charge and for addition of charges under Sections 302,201 read with Section 120B of the Indian penal Code against the accused opposite parties in terms of Section 216 Cr.P.C.
10. As indicted above, the aforesaid petition dated 9.8.2012 filed on behalf of the prosecution for addition of charges was finally rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st - cum-Special Judge, Siwan Jail Court by his order dated 17.8.2012 passed in the aforesaid Sessions trial No. 158 of 2010, primarily on the ground of delay on the part of the prosecution in approaching the court. While passing the aforesaid order dated 17.8.2012, the learned trial court had refused to consider the matter on merit and had refused to examine and scrutinize the materials available on record solely on the ground of delay on the part of the prosecution.
11. The petitioner-the State of Bihar, through the District Magistrate, Siwan, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 17.8.2012 passed by the learned trial court, had approached this court earlier in Cr. Revision No. 1030 of 2012, which was finally disposed of by an order dated 18.12.2012 (Annexure-6). After considering the rival submissions of the parties, this Court came to a conclusion that the powers under section 216 Cr.P.C. can be exercised at any stage by the court before pronouncement of the judgment. The order dated 17.8.2012 passed by the learned 7 Patna High Court CR. REV. No.512 of 2013 (12) dt.18-04-2014 7 / 17 trial court rejecting the prayer of the prosecution for addition of charge on the ground of delay without considering the matter on merit was held to be not sustainable in law. This Court further held that the aforesaid order dated 17.8.2012 was not an interlocutory order. Hence the objection raised on behalf of the opposite parties about maintainability of the aforesaid Cr. Revision application was held to be untenable and was, accordingly, rejected by holding therein that the revision application was maintainable before this Court. However, in view of the objections raised on behalf of the accused-opposite parties, this Court refused to re-appraise/re- appreciate the evidence/materials available on the record for issuance of a direction to the learned trial court for amending the charges. In paragraph 20 of the aforesaid order, this Court came to a conclusion that sufficiency or otherwise of the materials for addition of charges against the accused persons is required to be necessarily decided first by the learned trial court and not by the revisional court. Finally, by the aforesaid order dated 18.12.2012 passed in the aforesaid Cr. Revision No. 1030 of 2012, the matter was remitted back to the learned trial court with a direction indicated in paragraph 22 of the said order. For ready reference paragraph 22 of the aforesaid order dated 18.12.2012 (Annexure-
6) is reproduced herein below:-
"22. In the result, the impugned order dated 17.8.2012 passed in Sessions Trial No. 158 of 2010 by the learned Additional sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Siwan, is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned trial court for consideration of the petition filed by the prosecution on merit. The learned trial court shall examine and scrutinize the evidence of witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution and only thereafter shall come 8 Patna High Court CR. REV. No.512 of 2013 (12) dt.18-04-2014
8 / 17 to a conclusion about the sufficiency or otherwise of the materials for addition of charges against the accused-opposite parties. He shall be obliged to pass a reasoned and speaking order after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned. The learned trial court shall make all endeavours to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, keeping in mind the observations and directions made above, within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order."
12. In view of the aforesaid remand order made by this Court, the matter was considered again by the learned trial court, but by the impugned order dated 15.3.2013, the petition dated 9.8.2012 filed on behalf of the prosecution under Section 216 Cr.P.C. has once again been rejected primarily on the ground that neither the corpus delecti of the aforesaid two abducted persons were recovered nor their Post-Mortem examination reports have been brought on record by the prosecution. The learned trial court has come to a conclusion that prima-facie there are no sufficient materials for framing charges under Sections 302,201 and 120B of the Indian penal Code against the accused- opposite parties, though it has mentioned about the ocular evidence of P.Ws. 1,4,5 and 6 given in different paragraphs of their depositions in support of their claim that both the aforesaid abducted persons have been murdered by the accused persons.
13. In order to appreciate the issues involved in the present proceeding, it would be relevant to reproduce Section 216 as also Section 217 Cr.P.C., which are as under:-
" 216. Court may alter charge:- (1) Any court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.
(2) Every such alteration or addition shall be 9 Patna High Court CR. REV. No.512 of 2013 (12) dt.18-04-2014 9 / 17 read and explained to the accused.
(3) If the alteration or addition to a charge is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is not likely, in the opinion of the Court, to prejudice the accused in his defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case, the Court may, in its discretion, after such alteration or addition has been made, proceed with the trial as if the altered or added charge had been the original charge.
(4) If the alteration or addition is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is likely, in the opinion of the Court, to prejudice the accused or the prosecutor as aforesaid, the Court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary.
(5) If the offence stated in the altered or added charge is one for the prosecution of which previous sanction is necessary, the case shall not be proceeded with until such sanction is obtained, unless sanction has been already obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as those on which the altered or added charge is founded.
217. Recall of witnesses when charge altered:- Whenever a charge is altered or added to by the court after the commencement of the trial, the prosecutor and the accused shall be allowed-
(a) to recall or re-summon, and examine with reference to such alteration or addition, any witness who may have been examined, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, considers that the prosecutor or the accused, as the case may be, desires to recall or re-examine such witness for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice;
(b) also to call any further witness whom the Court may think to be material."
10 Patna High Court CR. REV. No.512 of 2013 (12) dt.18-04-201410 / 17
14. It would be relevant to mention here that Chapter XVII of the Cr.P.C. deals with the charge in a criminal trial against the accused persons. Section 211 Cr.P.C. provides that what shall be the contents of charges and how charges shall be framed against the accused. Section 216 Cr.P.C. provides for alteration/amendment of the charge. On plain reading of Section 216 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that charges can be altered or added by the court at any stage of the trial before pronouncement of the judgment. The Legislature in its wisdom has not prescribed any time limit either for alteration or for addition of charge. The legislative intent is clear and unambiguous that charge can be altered or added by the court at any time before the judgment is pronounced. However, once the power is exercised under Section 216 (1) Cr.P.C. by the court, then requirements indicated in other Sub-sections of this Section are required to be complied with. Once there is an alteration or addition of charge, then that is required to be read and explained to the accused. In appropriate cases, the court may direct a new trial or may adjourn the trial for a reasonable period, so that no prejudice is caused to the accused or the prosecutor after such alteration or amendment of the charge. It further provides that if after such alteration or addition of charge, the previous sanction is necessary, then in that case the trial shall not proceed until such sanction is obtained, unless sanction has already been obtained for prosecuting the accused on the same facts on the basis of which charges were altered or added. While exercising power under section 216 Cr.P.C. by the court, once trial has already commenced, the requirement of Section 217 Cr.P.C. is also required to be followed. However, so far the present case is concerned, since the learned trial court has 11 Patna High Court CR. REV. No.512 of 2013 (12) dt.18-04-2014 11 / 17 refused to exercise its power under section 216 Cr.P.C., for addition of charges, therefore, neither the prosecution nor the accused persons have raised any issue regarding violation of other provisions of Section 216 or Section 217 Cr.P.C.
15. The scheme and scope of Section 216 Cr.P.C. is no longer a res integra, and it came up for consideration before the Hon‟ble Apex Court on various occasions. In the case of Kantilal Chandulal Mehta Vs. The State of Maharashtra [1969 (3) SCC 166 = AIR 1970 SC 359], the Hon‟ble Apex Court has held in paragraph 4 of SCC as under:-
"In our view the Criminal Procedure Code gives ample power to the courts to alter or amend a charge whether by the Trial Court or by the appellate court provided that the accused has not to face a charge for a new offence or is not prejudiced either by keeping him in the dark about that charge or in not giving a full opportunity of meeting it and putting forward any defence open to him, or the charge finally preferred against him."
16. In the case of Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat [ AIR 2004 SC 2078 = (2004)5 SCC 347], the Hon‟ble Apex Court while considering the scheme of Section 216 Cr.P.C. has held in paragraph 10 of the aforesaid judgment as under:-
"Therefore, if during trial the trial court on a consideration of broad probabilities of the case based upon total effect of the evidence and documents produced is satisfied that any addition or alteration of the charge is necessary, it is free to do so, and there can be no legal bar to appropriately act as the exigencies of the case warrant or necessitate."
17. Similarly, in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Salman Salim Khan [ (2004) 1 SCC 525 = AIR 2004 SC 12 Patna High Court CR. REV. No.512 of 2013 (12) dt.18-04-2014 12 / 17 1189], it has been held that charges can be altered at any stage of proceeding depending upon the evidence adduced in the case. If the trial is being held before a court of Magistrate and if he comes to a conclusion that materials on record indicate the commission of offence which requires to be tried by superior court, he can always do so by committing such case for further trial by superior court. Similarly, if the trial is being conducted in superior court like the Sessions court, and if that court comes to the conclusion that evidence produced in the said trial makes out a lesser offence than one for which the accused is charged, it is always open to that court, based on the evidence, to convict such accused for a lesser offence, but this issue has to be left to be decided by the learned trial court.
18. In the case of Sabbi Mallesu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 2006 SC. 2747 = 2006 AIR. SCW 3719 = (2006) 10 SCC 543], the Hon‟ble Apex Court in paragraph 19 has held as under:-
"The power of the court to alter the charges is neither in doubt nor in dispute but in terms of Sub-section 2 of section 216 Cr.P.C., it was obligatory on the part of the learned sessions Judge to bring it to the notice of the accused and explain the same to the accused."
19. In the present case, the occurrence in question is said to have taken place on 16.8.2004, when two sons of P.W.1 Kalawati Devi were abducted by the accused persons. Since the date of occurrence more than 9 years have already elapsed. It is the case of the prosecution, not disputed by the accused-opposite parties, that both the victims have not returned so far. In fact, 13 Patna High Court CR. REV. No.512 of 2013 (12) dt.18-04-2014 13 / 17 according to the prosecution case, both of them were murdered at Village Pratappur, the village home of the accused opposite party No.1. Admittedly, the corpus delecti of the aforesaid two victims were not recovered, as a result thereof the Post-Mortem examinations were not conducted on the dead bodies of the aforesaid victims.
20. In the case of Badshah Vs. State of U.P. [(2008) 3 SCC 681], the Hon‟ble Apex court by referring to section 108 of the Evidence Act has held that even if corpus delecti of an abducted person is not recovered and nothing is heard about him for a long time, the law presumes him to be dead. It was further held that in such cases it would not be necessary to prove the corpus delecti. Paragraph 21 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced herein below:-
"In the event of murder of an abducted person, either by direct or presumptive evidence, an inference of murder can safely be drawn in respect whereof, it would not be necessary to prove the corpus delicti."
21. In the case of Ramjee Rai Vs. State of Bihar[ (2006) 13 SCC 229], the Hon‟ble Apex Court has held that even in absence of corpus delecti, on the basis of strong circumstantial evidence a judgment of conviction can be recorded. Discovery of the dead body is a rule of caution and not of law. For better appreciation paragraph 22 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced herein below:-
"It is now a trite law that corpus delicti need not be proved. Discovery of the dead body is a rule of caution and not of law. In the event, there exists strong circumstantial evidence, a judgment of conviction can be recorded even in absence of 14 Patna High Court CR. REV. No.512 of 2013 (12) dt.18-04-2014 14 / 17 the dead body."
22. In the case of Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal [AIR 1979 SC 366= (1979) 3 SCC 4] while considering the scope of Section 227 Cr.P.C. it has been held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that for the purpose of framing charge a Judge is required to find out as to whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. If the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused, the court would be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
23. In view of the legal propositions enunciated by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, referred to above, and in view of the fact that both the abducted persons have not returned till date, they will be presumed to be dead under the law in terms of Section 107 of the Evidence Act. Though the corpus delecti of both the abducted persons have not been recovered, but in view of ocular evidence of P.Ws. 1,4,5 and 6, which find mentioned in the impugned order of the learned trial court itself, that both the abducted persons have been murdered by the accused persons at village Pratappur and their dead bodies have been made traceless, as also in view of the judicial pronouncement of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, that recovery of corpus delecti is not a condition precedent for putting an accused on trial for charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and in view of further judicial pronouncements by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that even on the basis of grave suspicion, charge can be framed against the accused persons, in the considered opinion of this Court the learned trial court has committed an error of law in refusing to alter the charge and refusing to add the charges under Sections 15 Patna High Court CR. REV. No.512 of 2013 (12) dt.18-04-2014 15 / 17 302,201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that neither corpus delecti of the abducted persons have been recovered nor the Post-Mortem examination reports have been brought on record. Certainly, if the charges are amended, the other requirements as provided under Sections 216 and 217 Cr.P.C. are required to be followed.
24. It is well settled that for the purpose of framing charge against a particular accused and for the purpose of recording conviction against that accused, exactly same and similar standard of proof is not required to be applied by the trial court. Though charge can be framed even on the basis of grave suspicion, but conviction cannot be recorded merely on the basis of suspicion. For the purpose of recording conviction, the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts. In our Criminal Jurisprudence, presumption of innocence is always in favour of the accused, unless and until the charges are proved beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts.
25. In the present case, in view of ocular evidence of P.Ws. 1,4, 5 and 6, there appears to be strong suspicion against the accused persons for framing charges under sections 302, 201 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the learned trial court ought to have allowed the petition filed on behalf of the prosecution for amending the charge and for addition of charges under sections 302,201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, particularly in view of the presumptive death of the aforesaid two abducted persons, as indicated above. The learned trial court has simply not taken into consideration the aforesaid legal aspects and has mechanically rejected the prayer of the prosecution primarily on the ground of non-recovery of the 16 Patna High Court CR. REV. No.512 of 2013 (12) dt.18-04-2014 16 / 17 corpus delecti.
26. It is true that normally the issue regarding amendment of charge should be left to be decided by the learned trial court at the first instance, but it is equally true that charges can be altered or amended at ay stage of trial before the pronouncement of the judgment by the court. For the aforesaid reason, on earlier occasion the matter was remitted back by this Court by an order dated 18.12.2012( Annexure-6) passed in Cr. Revision No. 1030 of 2012, but the learned trial court has simply reiterated its previous decision, though on different ground.
27. Initially, this Court was inclined to remit the matter back once again to the learned trial court for considering the matter afresh, but in the factual matrix noted above and in view of judicial pronouncements by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, referred to above, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by remitting the matter back to the learned court below in view of the materials already available on record, as it would simply further delay the disposal of trial of the accused-opposite parties. It would be in the interest of both the parties that trial of the accused-opposite parties is concluded at an earliest possible time.
28. For the reasons recoded above, the impugned order dated 15.3.2013 passed in Sessions Trial No. l58 of 2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st -cum-Special Judge, Siwan Jail Court, Siwan, is hereby set aside. The learned trial court is hereby directed to proceed further by amending the charge and by adding charges under sections 302,201 read with section 120B of the Indian penal Code against the accused- opposite parties, whereafter the learned trial court shall be 17 Patna High Court CR. REV. No.512 of 2013 (12) dt.18-04-2014 17 / 17 obliged to comply the mandatory requirements under the provisions of Sections 216 and 217 Cr.P.C. and only thereafter, he shall proceed further and shall make endeavours to conclude the trial of the accused-opposite parties at an earliest possible time.
29. In the result, the application stands allowed, but with the observations and directions made above.
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Kanth/-
AFR