' ZAFAR IQBAL CHAUDHRY, J.---Mst. Sughran Bibi petitioner has filed instant Revision petition under section 439, Cr.P.C. To call in question the impugned order, dated 17-6-2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kharian, whereby the application of the respondents for deletion of offence under section 354-A, P.P.0 and for sending the case to learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Kharian has been accepted.
2. Shortly narrated the facts are that Shafaqat Ali son of the petitioner got lodged F.I.R. No,176 of 2004 under sections 452/354/ 337/34, 337-F(v), 337-A(i), 337-F(i), P.P.0 alleging therein that he is zamindar by profession. On 24-3-2004 at about 10-00 a.m., he along with his mother Mst. Sughran Bibi .Petitioner, brother-in-law Nazar Hussain and sister Mst. Samina Bibi was present in his house.
Meanwhile, Sajjad Hussain armed with churri, Jahangir Hussain, Aftab and Ashfaq in consultation with each other all armed with hockeys entered into their house. On coming, Sajjad Hussain respondent raised a lalkara to kill Nazar Hussain. Upon which Jahangir respondent gave hockey blow hitting on the head of Nazar Hussain. Second blow was caused by Aftab respondent which hit Nazar Hussain on the left side of his head who fell down. Mst. Sughran Bibi petitioner when came forward to rescue Nazar Hussain whereupon Sajjad Hussain respondent gave a churri blow which hit on the left hand of Mst. Sughran Bibi petitioner. Then rest of the accused caused injuries on the different parts of the bodies of Mst. Sughran Bibi and Nazar Hussain. Both of them fell down. Mst.
Samina sister of the complainant came forward to rescue them whereupon the accused slapped the complainant and his sister and also torn her clothes. In the meanwhile, Muhammad Bashir father of the complainant and Liaqat Ali also came there and witnessed the occurrence. The accused persons after cutting hair of mother of the complainant ran away.
3. The motive behind the occurrence was alleged to be that there was a dispute over property between Nazar Hussain brother-in-law of the complainant with the accused party, who nourished grudge in their minds and to take revenge had injured mother of the complainant and Nazar Hussain brother-in-law of the complainant.
4. According to the petitioner, offences under sections 324/ 354-A/337-L(i)/334/337-F(iv) were intentionally not added in the F.I.R. In spite of the fact that the torn clothes were presented to the Investigating Officer but he did not mention the same even in the recovery memo. The complainant requested the Investigating Officer to add the above-said sections in the F.I.R. But he refused to do so, hence, the petitioner was constrained to file private complaint before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kharian. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kharian sent for the report under section 202, Cr.P.C. From the learned Magistrate section 30-Kharian, who submitted the same with the recommendation that prima facie offences under sections 334/452/ 354- A/324/337-L(i)/F(i)/(iv)/(v)/A(i), P.P.0 are made out, vide inquiry report, dated 27-6-2005. After framing of charge under section 354-A, Cr.P.C., on 16-9-2005, respondents filed an application for amendment of the above-said charge before the learned trial Court, which has been accepted vide order, dated 17-6-2006. Hence, this revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that according to the evidence produced by the petitioner section 354-A, P.P.0 was applicable and keeping in view the evidence, the learned trial Court was not justified to delete section 354-A, Cr.P.C. Without change in the circumstances. The learned trial Court had no power to amend the charge as it is evident from the statements of all the P.Ws. That numerous persons from the locality also entered the house and saw the victim ladies in naked position, so the learned trial Court was not justified to amend the charge while ignoring those aspects of evidence. It is also contended that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kharian is illegal and unlawful which may be set aside.
6. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the respondents submits that though there is evidence against the respondents that some inhabitants of the locality entered the house and they saw the ladies in naked condition as alleged in the complaint but as the occurrence had not taken place at open place and it had taken place inside the house, hence, section 354-A, P.P.C. Was not attracted and the learned trial Court has rightly amended the charge against the respondents.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents attached with this petition. The framing of charge does not per se means that the accused is held guilty. He is only made aware about the case of the prosecution borne out on the record referred to section 265-D, Cr.P.C. Upon which he has to be prosecuted. The object of the charge being just to enable the accused to know about the precise accusations against him and nothing more. This does not preclude him from advancing his version neither a charge has ever constrained a Court nor does it places any clog on the Court to arrive at a judgment of conviction or otherwise. It, therefore, just enables the Court to start with the trial and after recording evidence decide whether a charge has been established beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Consequently, it is the ultimate conclusions reached by the Court which are to determine as to what offence an accused had committed or whether at all a case had been made out against him. According to the preliminary evidence produced by the complainant-petitioner prima facie section 354-A, P.P.C. Was applicable. No doubt a charge once framed does not become rigid and can be subjected to alteration or change and that is why a power under section 227 Cr.P.C. Has been given to the Court in this respect. Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers a Court to alter or add to any charge at any time before a judgment is pronounced but that is always subject to evidence on record against the accused person. But in the present case charge was framed and the evidence is yet to be recorded by the trail court and the witnesses are also to be cross-examined by the respondents. The Learned Trail Court after recording complete evidence can formed its opinion on the basis of evidence produced by the parties. So, at this stage without recording further evidence and change in the circumstances the amendment of charge was not justified. Hence, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned order, dated 17-6-2006 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Khariyan is set aside and the case is remanded to the Learned Additional Session Judge, Khariyan to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.