JUDGMENT Shiv Shanker, J.
1. This criminal revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 7.9.2004 passed by Sri Ram Prasad, Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Bhadhoi, Gyanpur, in Sessions Trial No. 164 of 2001, State v. Sanjay Kumar and Ors.
2. The brief facts, arising out of this revision, are that Ramesh Chandra Srivastava son of Dwarka Lal, the informant, had lodged first information report on 5.6.2001 at 12.10 PM against accused Sanjay Kumar Srivastava and others for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Suriyawa, District Bhadohi registered as crime No. 49 of 2001 wherein it was mentioned that the mode adopted on 5.6.2001 for the measurement of the agricultural field owned by the parties at village Kusaura, was objected by Satendra Kumar, the deceased. At that time Naresh Lal, his sons namely Pravesh Kumar, Virendera Kumar, Sanjai Kumar, grand sons Ajeet Kumar, Ajai Kumar and son-in-law Pradeep Kumar were also present at the field. They all started hurling abuses to Satendra Kumar which was objected by him, Naresh Lal and his son-in-law Pradeep Kumar exhorted that Satendra Kumar be killed whereupon Pravesh Kumar and Virendra Kuamr caught hold and Sanjay Kumar gave knife blows to Satendra Kumar with a view to kill him. On the raising of the alarm by Satendra Kumar, the informant and other witnesses rushed up to the place of occurrence. Sanjay Kumar and Ajeet Kumar also gave knife blows inflicting injuries but Naresh Lal, Virendra, Pravesh Kumar Ajeet Kumar and Pradeep Kumar gave lathi blows to the informant and his brothers and sons. Consequently they also sustained injuries in the incident. On the same day, injured Satendra Kumar was taken to the hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. The case was registered against all the accused persons. After completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was submitted against the all accused persons after taking the cognizance; the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
3. Thereafter, the arguments were heard on behalf of both the parties at the stage of framing of the charges by the learned sessions judge, Bhodhi and thereafter it was found by the learned sessions judge in its order date 26.4.2003 that the accused be charged for the offence under Section 147, 304-Part- II read with Section 149, 323 read with Section 149, 504 and 506 I.P.C.. Feeling aggrieved by it the informant approached before this Court by way of filing criminal revision No. 1314 of 2003, Ramesh Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Ors.. The said revision was decided by this Court vide its order dated 4.7.2003 and it was ordered that the charge framed by the learned sessions judge for the offence under Section 304 Part-II/149 is quashed and instead the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. be framed, keeping in view the observations made. So far as other charges are concerned they are not interfered with.
4. Thereafter, the learned trial court had framed the charges on 7.9.2004 against the accused persons namely Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Ajeet Kumar Srivastava, Babu Naresh Lal Srivastava, Virendra Kumar Srivastava, Ajay Kuamr Srivastava, Pravesh Kumar Srivastava, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava for the offence under Sections 147, 323 read with Section 149, 504 and 506 I.P.C.. Feeling aggrieved by it the informant has again approached to this Court by way of preferring the present revision.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
6. It is urged on behalf of the revisionist that the trial court has committed illegality and irregularity in passing the impugned order. While the offence under Section 302 read with Section 147 I.P.C. was prima facie made out against call the accused. This Court has already observed in its revisional order dated 4.7.2003 that the charge be framed for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C.. However, the trial court has not complied the direction of this Court given in the aforesaid order.
7. On the other hand it is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist for the respondent No. 2 to 7 that the charges may be amended at any time in view of the provisions of Section 216 Cr.P.C.. Therefore, this revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
8. In the present case, Satendra Kumar was shot dead and Ramesh Chandra, Dinesh Chandra, Nagendra Kumar and Sushil Kumar sustained injuries. The parties were heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadhoi, Court No. 1 at the stage of framing the charges and an order was passed on 26.4.2003 wherein a prima facie: case for the offence under Sections 147, 304 Part-II read with Sections 149, 323 read with Sections 149, 504, 506 I.P.C., was made out. Therefore, the charges for the aforesaid offence are liable to be framed against the accused persons. Thereafter, criminal revisions No. 1314 of 2003, Ramesh Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Ors. was filed before this Court wherein the order to frame the charge under Section 304 part-II read with Section 149 I.P.C. was quashed and the trial court was directed to frame the charge against the accused persons for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. instead of framing charge under Section 304 part -II read with Section 149 I.P.C.. The other charges were not interfered with
9. The learned trial court was bound to follow the direction of this Court. However, it did not deliberately follow the directions contained in the revisional order of this Court. Further, there is no dispute that the charge may be amended at any stage, even before the delivery of judgment as provided under Section 216, Cr.P.C.. In the circumstances, it is the proper stage to amend the charge as evidence has not been recorded in the case.
10. After the perusal of the facts of the case, coupled with the post mortem report and the injury reports, there is sufficient grounds to presume that the accused-respondents have also committed the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. And, as such, they are liable to be charged with the said offence. In the circumstances, learned trial court has committed illegality, irregularity and impropriety in passing the impugned order and as such the order is liable to be quashed.
11. The revision is allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside. It is hereby directed that the trial court shall frame/amend the charge against the accused persons for the. offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C..