HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5125 of 2024 Court No. - 90 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 9, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 7.9.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-I, Banda in Session Trial No. 1228 of 2020 (State vs. Shivdas @ Sudas and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 56 of 2020, P.S. Kamasin, District-Banda, by which the application moved by the revisionist under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for alteration of charge has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the death of the deceased Ram Swaroop has been caused as a result of shock and hemorrhage due to antemortem injuries. The said postmortem report has not been carefully perused and considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while framing the charge under the relevant sections. He next submitted that the deceased has died within six hours of the incident and the cause of death is shock and hemorrhage due to antemortem injuries. Nine injuries have been shown on the person of the deceased. He further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Gulrez Khan, Javed Husain Khan, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Manish Shukla, Vikas Tripathi Nattu Prasad .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 8 Others .....Opposite Party(s) without going through the entire postmortem report, nature of injuries and all the probabilities, the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. would have been framed, but by not doing so, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has ignored the material fact, particularly the postmortem report of the deceased and prayed that the revision be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 2 to 9 has submitted that, so far as the framing of charge under Section 304 I.P.C. besides other Sections is concerned, the same is in accordance with law and based on the chargesheet filed by the police and after gone through the same chargesheet and after careful consideration has framed the charge under Sections 147, 148, 149, 304, 308, 324, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and there is no illegality in the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 07.09.2024. He next submitted that, so far as the alteration of charge is concerned, the same can be altered at any stage during pendency of the trial and passing of the order in the matter. In support of his contention learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 9 has placed reliance upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohd. Maqbool Magrey & Ors, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1041 pf 2022, decided on 26.07.2022. He further submitted that in the said police report, no cogent evidence has come on record, which suggests that the charge be altered from Section 304 I.P.C. to Section 302 I.P.C., besides other sections of the Indian Penal Code and prayed that the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 3. Having heard the rival contentions and perusal of the order dated 7.9.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, it cannot be said that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has framed the charge against the accused persons, which is based on the postmortem report, as giving findings, that no case is made out on the basis of the postmortem report for altering the charge under Section 304 I.P.C. to Section 302 I.P.C. but a perusal of the Postmortem report reveals that the cause of death of the deceased was shock and hemorrhage due to antemortem injuries and if a person has died as a result of antemortem injuries but the only CRLR No. 5125 of 2024 2 question, which arises that the nature of injuries are to be seen, which might have resulted into the death of the deceased, as a matter of fact. However, prima facie it appears that the death has been caused as a result of antemortem injuries and the said fact has been narrated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge but the injuries have been ignored. 4. Without going into the other merits of the case, the impugned order dated 7.9.2024 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Banda is hereby set aside and the present revision is allowed. 5. The matter is remitted back to the concerned trial court with a direction that the trial court shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law. (Harvir Singh,J.) October 9, 2025 Faridul CRLR No. 5125 of 2024 3 Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad