By this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the applicant - original first informant, calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 13.2.2015, passed by the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, Camp at Botad, below Exh.6 in the Sessions Case No. 182 of 2014, by which the learned Judge rejected the application filed by the applicant herein, praying for addition of Section 307 of the IPC.
2. It appears from the materials on record that the applicant herein is facing trial for the offence under Section 302 IPC. It appears that he had also lodged a cross FIR against the prosecution witnesses. His FIR was registered for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC. The charge-sheet filed by the Police is also for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC. It is his case that having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by him in the course of the incident, the Police should have filed charge-sheet for the offence under Section 307 IPC. It is his case that it was the duty Page 1 of 2 R/CR.MA/5974/2015 ORDER of the trial Court to consider this issue and the trial Court ought to have added Section 307 of the IPC.
The learned trial Judge, after giving due consideration to the application Exh.6 filed by the applicant herein, thought fit to reject the same. Mr. Chandrani, the learned advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that the case on hand is fit for addition of Section 307 IPC. Mr. Chandrani, the learned advocate has drawn my attention to the medical certificate, which is at page 65.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, more particularly the impugned order, I am of the view that no case is made out for interference in exercise of my supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The law governing the trial of criminal offence provides for alteration or addition of charges at any stage of the trial, depending upon the evidence adduced in the case. Thus, the argument regarding the framing of a proper charge are best left to be decided by the trial Court at an appropriate stage of the trial. Otherwise, as has happened in this case, proceedings get protracted by the intervention of the superior Courts. Whether the case for framing of charge under Section 307 of IPC is made out or not, can be looked into by the trial Court at any stage of the proceedings. Although the application has been rejected at this stage, yet even after some evidence is recorded, if the trial Court is of the view that charge under Section 307 IPC needs to be added, it is always open for the Court to do it. However, at least no case is made out at this stage. This application is rejected.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) Mohandas Page 2 of 2