# Ranjit Singh Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 80
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-15
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 564 of 2023
- **Bench:** Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ranjit-singh-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50295
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 -
Revision - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 323, 504 & 304 part-1 - court not
permitted to sit in revision review or recall
of its own order under the garb of
provisions of Section 216 that charge can
be altered at any stage of the case.(Para -
6)
FIR was filed by first informant - allegation -
their brother was playing a match with accused
- During match, an altercation occurred -
attacked with a cricketing bat - causing him to
die - session trial began on a chargesheet filed
under Sections 302, 323, 504 IPC - session
court framed a charge under Sections 302/34,
323/34, and 504 IPC - accused persons applied
for a conversion of charge to Sections 323, 504,
and 34 IPC- session judge concluded - prima
facie offence was made out under Sections 323,
504, and 304 part-1 IPC. (Para -3)

HELD:-Trial court can alter a charge based on
new evidence, but cannot re-appraise the
evidence without a change in circumstances.
This is not permissible under Section 362 of
Cr.P.C, as it creates disorder and chaos in
judicial proceedings. While good grounds may
exist, it cannot be construed as a prohibition
against altering charges for good reasons.(Para
-8 )

Revision allowed. (E-7)

## Text

80 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application of mind regarding the material
evidence
of
facts
and
circumstances
discussed with the trial court is concerned,
from page 22, there is detailed discussion
of the evidences as well as the statement of
the witnesses regarding the involvement of
the revisionist in the offence and thus, there
seems to be no unlawfulness in the
judgment and order of the trial court
regarding the application of mind to come
to the conclusion that there was much
stronger
case
available
against
the
revisionist and therefore, there is no
substance or force in the second set of
argument of learned counsel for the
revisionist.

15. Resultantly, the instant revision
has no merit and is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 80
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 564 of 2023

Ranjit Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Lalit Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 -
Revision - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 323, 504 & 304 part-1 - court not
permitted to sit in revision review or recall
of its own order under the garb of
provisions of Section 216 that charge can
be altered at any stage of the case.(Para -
6)
FIR was filed by first informant - allegation -
their brother was playing a match with accused
- During match, an altercation occurred -
attacked with a cricketing bat - causing him to
die - session trial began on a chargesheet filed
under Sections 302, 323, 504 IPC - session
court framed a charge under Sections 302/34,
323/34, and 504 IPC - accused persons applied
for a conversion of charge to Sections 323, 504,
and 34 IPC- session judge concluded - prima
facie offence was made out under Sections 323,
504, and 304 part-1 IPC. (Para -3)

HELD:-Trial court can alter a charge based on
new evidence, but cannot re-appraise the
evidence without a change in circumstances.
This is not permissible under Section 362 of
Cr.P.C, as it creates disorder and chaos in
judicial proceedings. While good grounds may
exist, it cannot be construed as a prohibition
against altering charges for good reasons.(Para
-8 )

Revision allowed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Lalit Kumar Shukla,
learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri
O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.
None responds for respondent no. 2 despite
service of notice.

2. By means of this criminal revision,
a judgment and order dated 22.11.2022
passed by Additional Session Judge/Special
Judge (POCSO Act), Mathura in S.C. No.
740 of 2022 (State vs. Jeetu @ Jitendra)
arising out of Case Crime No. 57 of 2022,
under Sections 323, 504, 304 part-1 IPC,
Police Station Farah, District Mathura has
been challenged.

3. The relevant facts are as below:-
5 All. Ranjit Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
81

An FIR naming Jeetu, Jagveer
and certain others was filed by the first
informant (the instant revisionist herein)
alleging that his brother Manverndra was
playing a match with the accused persons;
during the match some altercation ensued
between the two sides; the accused persons
Jeetu and Jagveer attacked his brother
Manvendra with a cricketing bat on his
head and he later died of the injury
sustained by him; the session trial began on
the basis of a chargesheet admittedly filed
under Sections 302, 323, 504 IPC; the
learned session court framed a charge
under Sections 302/34, 323/34 and 504
IPC, thereafter on the basis of an
application moved on behalf of the accused
persons that no offence under Section 302
IPC is made out and that the charge may be
converted into one under Sections 323, 504
and 34 IPC, the learned session judge
heard both the sides and came to the
conclusion that prima facie offence under
Section 323, 504, 304 part-1 IPC is made
out and fixed the case for framing of charge
under those sections only.

4. It is contended on behalf of the
revisionist ( first informant) that in this
case, the learned trial court took cognizance
under Sections 323, 504 and 302 IPC and
framed
charge
under
those
sections;
Thereafter on the basis of a mere
application moved on behalf of accused the
learned session judge altered the charge
from Section 302 to 304(1) IPC.

5. Certain facts have been pointed out
by the revisionist which are part of the case
diary; it is contended on the basis of the
statements given by certain persons that the
attack was done in a well planned manner
and with premeditation, hence it cannot be
said that there was no intention to cause
death.

6. In my view when the court decided
to take cognizance for the offence under
Section 302 IPC and thereafter proceeded
to frame a charge under Sections 302 IPC
and several other sections, it may be
presumed that the competent court has
perused the evidence on record and has
drawn a conclusion that prima facie such
and such offences are made out; admittedly
neither cognizance order nor the order of
framing of charge was ever challenged by
any of the side before the revisional court;
The charge has been altered on the basis of
a simple application moved by the defence
side; In my firm view, the court is not
permitted to sit in revision review or recall
of its own order under the garb of
provisions of Section 216 that charge can
be altered at any stage of the case.

7. In my opinion, at this juncture, there
is no need to go into the minute details of
the allegations or the evidence recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and attending
facts and circumstances of the case with
regard to settle the instant controversy
before this court. The moot point involved
is whether the court can review or recall or
set aside its own order.

8. I find substance in the contention
that once charge has been framed, it shall
be presumed that the learned trial court did
so after going through all the evidence on
record and drawing a conclusion that prima
facie offence under certain sections is made
out; Though the trial court has ample power
to alter the charge on the basis of suitable
82 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
material coming before it during the course of
trial but without finding any change in
circumstances or any material in between, the
trial court can not re-appraise the evidence on
record for drawing a different conclusion.
Such a course of action is clearly not
permissible
by
implication
under
the
provisions of Section 362 of Cr.P.C. If such a
course of action is permitted it shall create
disorder and chaos in judicial proceedings
and certainly shall be a cause for judicial
indiscipline. It may also be noted that there
may be certain good grounds for alteration of
charge but the same may be considered at the
proper stage after recording of evidence. In
my view, the alteration of charge in this
manner is not permissible in law. This may
not be construed to mean that the trial court
cannot exercise its powers to alter the charge
for some good reason which may pop up at
any subsequent stage, on the basis of any new
material/evidence coming before it during the
course of trial.

9. On the basis of above discussion the
impugned order dated 22.11.2022 is hereby,
set aside and the revision is allowed.

The learned trial court shall proceed
with the case on the basis of earlier charge.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 82
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 991 of 2015

Pradeep Kushwaha ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Shailesh Kumar Yadav, Sri Atul Kumar
Shahi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate, Sri Ashok Kumar Tripathi,
(Now, Sri Kartikeya Shukla, Sri S.P.K.
Tripathi, Sri Sanjay Kumar Shukla

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 -
Revision - Section 125 - Order for
maintenance
of
wives,
children
and
parents,
The
Hindu
Adoptions
and
Maintenance Act, 1956 - Section 20(3) -
right of a minor girl for maintenance from
parents after attaining majority till her
marriage is recognized in Section 20(3) of
the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.
(Para - 14)

Maintenance
case
filed
by
applicant
No.1(Opposite party Nos.2 herein) - against her
husband (revisionist) - Opposite party Nos.2 and
her two minor daughters were awarded
maintenance - plea of revisionist - unable to
provide maintenance due to job loss -
Respondent No.3 not entitled to maintenance
due to majority attainment during pendency
under Section 125 Cr.P.C..- revisionist and
private respondents residing in same house -
earns livelihood by some odd jobs like driving
tempo and earns in meager amount - not
disclosed real income before court below -
several defaults in payment of maintenance
awarded by court below.(Para -2 to 12,15)

HELD:-Revisionist being able bodied , is obliged
towards to earn by legitimate means and
maintain
his
wife
and
the minor
child.
Revisionist loses job, cannot maintain wife and
children,
not
tenable.
Respondent
No.3
(daughter of revisionist) will not be denied
maintenance due to attaining majority during
pendency.
Court
considers
modifying
the
maintenance order for respondent No.2 to 4 due