AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.A. Rahim, J.—Heard learned Counsel and the learned A.G.A. The matter is taken up for final hearing on consent of both the parties.
It has been contended that the prosecution case was that Gaurav Pratap Singh was injured by a firearm but charge has been framed for attempt to murder to Veer Mani Singh. It appears that no charge has been framed for the injuries caused to Gaurav Pratap Singh. So I find that the matter should be reconsidered by the learned trial Judge.
Upon a consideration of the facts and also submissions of both the sides, I find that the case should be remanded back to the trial court for reconsideration and for reframing of the charge, if necessary, for proper adjudication of the case.
The Revision is,therefore,allowed.The impugned order dated 1831997 passed by the VIHth Addl. Sessions Judge, Etawah,in crime case No.160 of 1991 and S.T. No. 50 of 1995 be set aside.The case is remanded back to the trial Judge for reconsideration of the charge in the light of the above observations. He will proceed after reframing the charge in accordance with law.
Revision allowed