Patna High Court - Orders
Ram Binod Singh @ Nippo Singh vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 23 July, 2013
Author: Ashwani Kumar Singh
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.29626 of 2013
======================================================
Ram Binod Singh @ Nippo Singh, resident of Village-Ratanpur, P.S.-
Nagar, District-Begusarai.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Chandradeo Singh, son of late Bondhu Singh, resident of Village-
Dumri, P.S.-Muffasil (Singhul), District-Begusarai.
.... .... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sadanand Roy, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties: Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 23-07-2013Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner has been made accused in Begusarai (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 339 of 2007 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 425, 326, 379, 307of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act as well as Section 3 & 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.
The police investigated the case and submitted charge sheet for the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. After submission of the charge sheet, the case 2 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29626 of 2013 (2) dt.23-07-2013 2/3 was committed to the court of sessions for trial. The trial Judge framed charges against the accused and others under Sections 307/149, 326/149, 325/149 and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act. After framing of charge, the case proceeded for trial. The prosecution case was closed and the case was fixed for examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At this stage, an application was filed on behalf of the prosecution for amendment of charge as the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution disclosed the offence under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substances Act. The trial Judge after hearing the parties, vide order dated 17.4.2013, allowed the prayer made on behalf of the prosecution for amendment in charge. The said order dated 17.4.2013 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No. 525 of 2009 is under challenge.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the trial Judge is erroneous in law. According to him, at such belated stage the court should not have allowed the prayer made on behalf of the prosecution. He further submitted that by adding charge for a separate offence the prosecution cannot be allowed to fill up lacuna in prosecution case. 3 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29626 of 2013 (2) dt.23-07-2013 3/3
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.
Be that as it may, if during trial, the trial court on a consideration of broad probabilities of the case based upon the total effect of the evidence and the document produced is satisfied that any addition or alteration is necessary, it is free to do and there can be no legal bar to appropriately act as the exigency of the case warrants in terms of Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, after an addition or alteration of the charge, the interest of the prosecution and the accused has to be safeguarded by putting them to further examine or cross- examine the witnesses already examined, as the case may be, and also affording them an opportunity to call other witnesses.
With these observations, the application is dismissed.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Sanjeet