Vivek vs Hasharaj and Others

H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 22.02.2012 in S.C. No. 6/2010 passed by the Fast Track Court, Kundapura. Petitioner lodged a complaint with the respondent police and the same came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 306 IPC. After investigation charge sheet is filed in S.C. No. 6/2010. The prosecution examined PW. 1 to PW. 24, got marked Exs. P1 to P39 and M.O. 1 to M.O. 19. When the matter was set down for further evidence on the side of prosecution, the respondent police filed an application u/s 216 Cr.P.C. to frame additional charge u/s 302 IPC r/w 34 IPC. The Sessions Judge after hearing arguments on both the side passed the impugned order dismissing the application. Hence, this revision petition by the complainant. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire petition papers.

PW. 16 is the Doctor and Ex. P.33 is the opinion of the Doctor. In this opinion it is stated as under:

The contusions mentioned in the post mortem report have occurred as a result of blunt force impact, the specific manner of causation of these injuries cannot be furnished. However, in view of multiple contusions present on the body the possibility of physical violence cannot be ruled out.

It is on the basis of this evidence on record, the prosecution filed the application to frame additional charge u/s 302 IPC. On detailed examination of the multiple contusions present on the body of the deceased, the Sessions Judge holds that they do not fall under any one of the categories specified u/s 302 IPC. On this reasoning the Sessions Judge rejected the application filed by the petitioner. I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the same. The prosecution is yet to examine few more witnesses. After completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution it is always open either for the prosecution or for the court or for the complainant to seek further investigation in the matter u/s 173(8) of Cr.P.C. In that event the Sessions Judge to consider the question of further investigation without being influenced by any of the observations made in the impugned order. On further investigation, if necessary, to alter the charge in accordance with law. With the above observation, this petition is hereby rejected.