The main legal point established is that an application for alteration of charge can be moved at any stage before the Judgment is pronounced by the concerned Court, as per Section 216 Cr.P.C.

ORDER

1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-

"Hence it is prayed on behalf of the appellant that the order of the Trial Court may be set aside and the Trial Court may be directed to frame the charges against the non-petitioner u/S 143, 458, 427, 323 I.P.C. & u/S.3 of the SC/ST Act and in any other appropriate order or direction which may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the appellant."

2. This Criminal Appeal under Section 14(A) (1) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred against the order dated 17.05.2017 of the learned Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sirohi whereby the application, under Section 216 Cr.P.C. preferred by the appellant, in Criminal Case No. 22/2015, relating to F.I.R. No. 169/2014 at Police Station Sheoganj, Sirohi, was rejected.

3. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that an F.I.R., bearing F.I.R. No. 169/2014 was lodged by the complainant-appellant Roopa Ram, stating therein that on the night of 27.07.2014, when he and his family members were asleep, at about 11:00 p.m., the private respondents entered his house with lathis, stones, and other weapons and began to beat him and his family members, and hurled casteist abuses at them, and damaged articles in his house. And that, the appellant subsequently lodged the said F.I.R. in which the respondents were charges for the offences under Sections 143, 458, 323, 427 I.P.C. and under Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, upon completion of the investigation, the concerned investigation officer filed charges against the privaet respondents for the offences under Sections 143,323,427 I.P.C. and Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocties) Act, 1989.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that despite it being within the knowledge of the investigation officer that the allegations against the private respondents reveal that they committed house trespass during the nighttime, after which they insulted the appellant and his family with casteist slurs, and physically assaulted them. And that these allegations were corroborated by the testimonies of P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7, being the appellant himself, each of whom stated that the private respondents broke into their residence during nighttime.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the learned Court below erred in rejecting the application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. made by the appellant, seeking an amendment in the chargesheet so filed against the private respondents by the concerned police authorities, seeking an addition to the existing charges, of the charge for the offence under Section 458 I.P.C.

6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, and submits that the learned Court below has rightly rejected the Section 216 Cr.P.C. application of the appellant after looking into the fact that upon completion of the investigation by the concerned investigating officer, it was found that the incident in question occurred outside the home of the appellant, and therefore the application of Section 458 I.P.C. is not made out against the private respondents. Similarly, as averred by the appellant, the charge for the offence under Section 427 I.P.C. was also not made out against the accused private respondents, upon investigation.

7. Heard learned counsel for both parties, and perused the record of the case.

8. This Court observes that the learned Court below has passed the impugned order, dated, 17.05.2017, is a well reasoned and speaking order.

9. In arriving at this conclusion, this Court looks to testimony of P.W. 11, the investigating officer Tagaram, found that the incident in question did not occur within th