Ponnaiyan and Others vs State

S.T. Ramalingam

The revision petitioners, who are six in number are accused before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kuzhithurai. On 4.2.1986, four charges

were framed against them under Sections 147, 352, 323 and 455 of the Indian Penal Code. The first charge is u/s 147 against accused 1 to 6. The

second charge is u/s 352 I.P.C. against accused 2, 4, 5 and 6. The third charge is u/s 323 I.P.C. against the 3rd accused. The fourth charge is

against the 2nd accused u/s 455 I.P.C.

P.Ws.1 and 2 who are husband and wife were examined on 2.7.1986. P.W.3 is Mahazar witness and P.W.4 speaks about the motive part of

the occurrence. They were examined on 31.7.1986. On 21.11.1986, P.W.5, who treated P.W.1 issued Ex.P.5 was examined. On the same day

P.W.6 the Head Constable, who has registered the case was also examined. On 17.12.1986, the investigating Officer was examined. With this,

the prosecution closed their evidence.

On 22.12.1986, statements from the accused u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. On 28.1.1986, arguments were heard

and case was posted for judgment on 30th January, 1987. On that day, the trial court framed six charges covering the earlier four charges and

adding two more charges. Fresh Charges are charges 3 and 5. The third charge is against the 1st accused for an offence punishable u/s 452 I.P.C.

The fifth charge is against the 2nd accused for an offence u/s 426 I.P.C. It is against the order dated 30.1.1987, under which six charges have

been framed, the present revision has been filed.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the charges have been framed without any basis and the trial court, instead of

delivery of judgment on the materials available on record then, ought not to have framed new charges.

A perusal of the oral evidence let in on behalf of the prosecution clearly shows that there is no basis for framing the new charges as has been

done by the trial Magistrate. Further, the power given to any court for altering to or adding of any charge at any time before judgment is

pronounced should be used sparingly only in grave cases, and not in cases where medical evidence reveals only bruises, which are minor in

character.

The trial Magistrate on the basis of the new charges has issued summons to the entire prosecution witnesses, which amounts to a fresh trial. That

is not the intention of Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As such, I find that the framing of the new charges are without any basis and

they are liable to be set aside.

Accordingly this revision is allowed, and the matter is remitted back to the trial magistrate. The Trial Magistrate viz., the Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Kuzhithurai is directed to pronounce judgment on the materials available on the charges originally framed on 4.2.1986 in accordance

with law.