The High Court's revisional jurisdiction limits intervention in Trial Court decisions unless there is a clear error or injustice, especially regarding the framing of charges under the Criminal Procedure Code.

JUDGMENT :

Jitendra Kumar, J.

The present criminal revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against impugned order dated 14.03.2023, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Nawada passed in Sessions Trial No. 323 of 2023/C.I.S. No. 3285 of 2014, arising out of Warisliganj P.S. Case No. 64 of 2011 has rejected the application.

Factual Background of the Case

2. The application under Section 216 Cr.PC was filed by the prosecution at the stage of final argument when statement of the accused-Ayasha Khatoon was recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC after recording of prosecution evidence. The accused-Ayasha Khatoon, who is O.P. No.2 herein, was facing charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. However, as per the application of the prosecution, sufficient evidence had come on record in the evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-5 and P.W.-8 to frame additional charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the application filed by the prosecution was opposed by the accused submitting that there was no sufficient material to frame additional charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. However, after hearing both the parties and perusal of the evidence on record, learned Trial Court has dismissed the application of the prosecution for framing additional charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that there is no substance or merit in the application of the prosecution. Learned Trial Court has exhaustively dealt with evidence of all the prosecution witnesses including the injury report and the Doctor to find there is no sufficient material to frame additional charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-Ayasha Khatoon for facing the trial.

3. Hence, being aggrieved by such order, the petitioner has preferred the present criminal revision petition.

4. The case is at the stage of admission.

5. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Trial Court has rejected the application filed on behalf of the prosecution arbitrarily and erroneously. There has been sufficient material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses to add charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent No.2. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

7. However, per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner, submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. He further submits that it is discretionary power of the Trial Court to add any additional charge during trial as per the material on record. He also submits that under revisional jurisdiction, this Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the impugned order. He also submits that it is settled principle of law that if two views are possible as per the material on record and the Trial Court has taken one reasonable and plausible view after appreciation of evidence/material on record, the same cannot be interfered under revisional jurisdiction, because the revisional Court is not required to re-appreciate the material or evidence on record to come to its own conclusion and supplant the view of Trial Court by its own. Hence, the petition filed by the petitioner is shorn of any merit liable to be dismissed in limine.

Extent and Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction of the High Court

8. Before I proceed to consider the rival submissions of the parties, it is desirable to see the extent and scope of revisional jurisdiction of High Court.

9. As per the statutory provisions and judicial precedents, it is settled principle of law that the revisional jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court is a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.PC in order to correct the miscarriage of justice, arising out of judgment, order, sentence or finding of subordinate Courts by looking into correctness, legality or proprie