2025:UHC:1471 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1747 of 2022 03 March, 2025 Satpal Singh --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Pankaj Semwal, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, learned counsel for applicant. Mr. Vipul Painuli, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, learned counsel for private respondents. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) By means of the present C482 application, applicant has challenged the order dated 24.02.2020 passed by learned trial court in Criminal Case No.1211 of 2019 State Vs. Mahesh and Others, whereby, the plea of applicant framing additional charge under Section 307 IPC against the accused persons was rejected as well as the order dated 02.08.2022 passed by the learned Revisional court in Criminal Revision No.56 of 2020 Satpal Vs. State and Others, whereby, the revision filed by the applicant against the order dated 24.02.2020 was rejected and further to direct the trial court to frame additional charge under Section 307 IPC against the accused persons and commenced the trial under Section 307 IPC too. 2. The facts in the nutshell are that an application was moved by the applicant before the Court of First Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar with the averments that on 2025:UHC:1471 2 24.06.2018, he had given a report at Police Station Kicchha against the accused persons/respondent Nos.2 to 9, according to which, the case was registered against the accused persons. It was alleged by the applicant in the application that the Investigating Officer, having connived with the accused persons, removed the name of co-accused Madan, Ashok and Ajay from the charge-sheet and at the same time, submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons only in minor sections. It was alleged by him that he along with his brother has sustained severe injuries in the incident. His brother had 14 stitches on his head. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statement of Medical Officer, who, conducted the medical examination on the person of injured, in which the injuries on the person of Omveer (his brother) was found to be serious in nature. However, Investigating Officer, ignoring the statement of the Medical Officer, did not submit the charge-sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 307 of IPC and thus, conspired with the accused persons. The brother of the applicant-informant remained hospitalized for 09 days. Hence, it was prayed that the offence under Section 307 IPC may be added against the accused persons. 3. The learned trial court by its detailed judgment dated 24.02.2020 has rejected the aforesaid application. Challenging the said order dated 24.06.2020, the applicant has preferred a Criminal Revision No.56 of 2020 Satpal Vs. State and 2025:UHC:1471 3 Others, which was also rejected by learned Revisional Court vide its order dated 02.08.2022. Challenging the aforesaid orders dated 24.02.2020 and 02.08.2022, applicant has knocked the door of this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully gone through the entire documents available in the file of the Court. 5. It needs to be mentioned at this stage that in the FIR lodged by the applicant, charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer in the Court under Sections 452, 323, 324, 325, 504 and 506 IPC. The Court below has recorded the finding of the fact that the applicant-informant nowhere stated in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the accused persons assaulted him with the intention to kill. Moreover, in the medical of the injured-Omveer, it was not stated that the injured could also succumbed to his injuries or those injuries were dangerous to life. In the FIR, it was stated that the injuries were caused with the sharp edged weapon, but, in the medical report so prepared, there is no injury caused by any sharp edged weapon. Even, the Medical Officer has stated that all the injuries were caused by a blunt object. 6. The learned trial court taking recourse to various authorities of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there was no basis to frame the charge under Section 307 IPC against the accused persons. A finding of fact was also recorded that the 2025:UHC:1471 4 informant-applicant himself stated that the accused persons, considering the injured as dead, left the place. It was reiterated that if the accused persons had the intention to kill while committing the crime, then they would have been given any threat to kill nor would they leave the injured in semi-dead condition, rather the accused persons could easily cause and ensure the death. In order to commit an offence under Section 307 IPC, commission of an act with intention to kill is a sine qua none. However, from the averments of the application, this fact could not be borne out. Accordingly, the learned trial court rejected the application moved by the applicant- informant. 7. Having gone through the findings recorded by the learned trial court and on consideration of the submissions raised before the Court, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. 8. In view of the above, the present C482 application fails and is accordingly dismissed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 03.03.2025 PN