The trial court possesses inherent authority to add or modify charges before final judgment. High Court intervention regarding charge framing is reserved for exceptional circumstances and should not be exercised if the petitioner failed to exhaust available statutory remedies for charge alteration at the trial level.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the order dated 28.06.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella in S.T. Case No. 90 of 2022 whereby and where under, the learned trial court has framed charges for the offence punishable under Sections 304B of Indian Penal Code and alternatively under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far seven prosecution witnesses have been examined after framing of the charge and the case is next fixed to 11.11.2025 for recording of further evidence.

4. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is accused of having committed the offence punishable under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code. Charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code. Cognizance of the offence was also taken against the petitioner under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code. At the time of framing of charge, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella has recorded that there is sufficient material to frame charges under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code but alternatively the charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code has also been framed against the petitioner.

5. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jasvinder Saini & Ors. vs. State (Government of NCT Of Delhi) reported in (2013) 7 SCC 256, wherein the Two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the facts of that case, where the trial court recorded a specific finding at the time of framing of charge on 18.03.2009, that against the appellants of that case, who were the accused person of the case, there is no material for framing of charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code but subsequently, by passing a order on 23.02.2011 the trial court directed addition of charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code; under such circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that addition of charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code cannot be justified on the basis of the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajbir @ Raju & Anr. vs. State of Haryana reported in (2010) 15 SCC 116, paragraph no.7 of which reads as under:-

‘’7. We further direct all the trial courts in India to ordinarily add Section 302 to the charge of Section 304- B, so that death sentences can be imposed in such heinous and barbaric crimes against women. Copy of this order be sent to the Registrars General/Registrars of all High Courts, which will circulate it to all trial courts.’’

6. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the case of Jasvinder Saini & Ors. vs. State (Government of NCT Of Delhi) (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India set aside the order of the trial court of framing of charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and remitted the matter back to the trial court for a fresh order keeping in view the observation made in the said judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in paragraph no. 14 of the case of Jasvinder Saini & Ors. vs. State (Government of NCT Of Delhi) (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that in its opinion the true purport of the order of the two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajbir @ Raju & Anr. vs. State of Haryana (supra) was that the direction in paragraph