The main legal point established in the judgment is that the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are binding on all subordinate Courts, and the charge of Section 302 IPC can only be added in cases where unnatural death is homicidal in nature.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. FIR No. 765/2007 was registered against the Petitioners for offences punishable under Section 498A/304B/406/34 IPC on the death of one Ms. Chandni on a complaint lodged by her father Shri Ajay Gautam. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed for offences punishable under Section 498A/304B/406/34 IPC against Petitioner Nos.1 to 4. Subsequently, on the formal arrest of Petitioner Nos. 5 to 8 supplementary charge-sheet was filed for offences under Section 498A/304B/406/302 IPC. The matter was heard for framing of charge, and vide order dated 18th March, 2009 Learned Additional Sessions Judge held that there was prima facie evidence of offences punishable under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC against the Petitioners and thus directed framing of the charges. Vide this order the Learned Additional Sessions Judge also held that there was no material evidence for framing of charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused persons. The trial continued and as many as 18 witnesses were examined. On 22nd November, 2010 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajbir @ Raju & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana SLP No. 9507/2010 directed as under: “We further direct all trial Courts in India to ordinarily add Section 302 to the charge of Section 304B, so that death sentences can be imposed in such heinous and barbaric crimes against women.”

2. In view of these directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide the impugned order dated 23rd February, 2011 after hearing the arguments on the issue of amendment of charge, learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the additional charge under Section 302 IPC against the Petitioners. This order is impugned in the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the directions dated 22nd November, 2010 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court were non est in law and the additional charge under Section 302 IPC could not have been framed without following due process of law. It is contended that the Learned Trial Court had no jurisdiction to review its earlier order and amend the charge by adding Section 302 IPC especially when it had returned a finding vide order dated 18th March, 2009 that there was no material for framing of charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused persons and the order passed is contrary to the principles of natural justice. The order dated 18th March, 2009 was not challenged by the State before the High Court. Further the charge was amended at the fag end of the trial, thus causing prejudice to the Petitioner. It is further contended that amendment of the charge could have taken place under Section 216 Cr.P.C. only if during trial additional material comes on record against the accused persons.

4. Learned APP on the other contends that Section 216 Cr.P.C. contemplates alteration and amendment of the charge at any stage of the trial and additional evidence being available during trial is no pre requisite, though the same may be one of the grounds to alter the charge. The Learned Trial Court has followed the due procedure, heard the Petitioners before alteration of charge and thereafter amended it. No prejudice has been caused to the Petitioners. Further in view of the opinion of the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem a charge under Section 302 IPC was clearly warranted. There being no infirmity in the impugned order, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties. In the present case the facts which are relevant to be noted are that the Autopsy Surgeon in the post-mortem report opined the cause of death as “Cranio Cerebral Damage” consequent upon blunt force impact. It was also opined that possibility of knock down by other party in this case cannot be ruled out at this stage. Thus, the Autopsy Surgeon did not rule out the possibility of homicidal death.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajbir @ Raju (supra) while dealing with a special leave to appeal under Section 304B IPC directed all trial