The court's decision emphasized the wide powers of the trial court to alter or add charges before judgment, ensuring that such alterations do not cause prejudice to the accused or the prosecution.

1. By consent, this revision is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4 in S.C.No.214 of 2010 on the file of the Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Dindigul and they are facing prosecution for the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.

3. A perusal of materials available on record would disclose that the respondent-Police after investigating the case, has charged all the accused for the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC and after committal, the trial Court has also framed charge under Section 306 of IPC and proceeded with the trial.

4. It is represented that out of 24 witnesses, 9 witnesses have been examined and the trial is in advanced stage. At this juncture the respondent/prosecution has filed Crl.M.P.No.219 of 2013 under Section 216 Cr.P.C. to frame additional charges under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) IPC, against the revision petitioners/accused.

5. In the petition, it is averred by the prosecution that one Gokila is the wife of the first revision petitioner and the marriage between him and Gokila took place on 08.09.2003 as per the wishes of the elders of the family and after marriage, both of them were residing at Dindigul and out of wedlock, a daughter was born, viz. Krishnapriya. According to the defacto complainant / P.W.1, who is the brother of Gokila, his sister has been subjected to ill treatment and harassment on account of unreasonable demand of dowry at the hands of all the revision petitioners / accused and unable to bear with the same, she has decided to commit suicide and accordingly, she poured petrol on herself and her daughter, viz. Krishnapriya who was aged about 4 years, and committed suicide. It is further averred by the prosecution that the final report is mainly based on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, who has not chosen to examine the relevant witnesses, and during the course of trial, it has been found that the deceased committed self-immolation with her daughter, unable to bear with the torture and ill-treatment on account of demand of dowry, and therefore, the charge should be altered into one under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) IPC.

6. The said petition was strongly opposed by the revision petitioners accused by contending that the respondent, after full-fledged investigation, came to the conclusion that no material is placed or available to show that the deceased Gokila committed self-immolation on account of demand of dowry and therefore, the final report has been filed under Section 306 IPC. It is further stated that the trial is also in the advanced stage and alteration of the charge would gravely prejudice them. Therefore, the revision petitioners have sought for dismissal of the petition.

7. The trial Court, on consideration of the petition and the counter affidavit and on going through the testimonies of the witnesses, viz. P.Ws.1 to 4, 8 and 9, found that their testimonies prima facie indicate that the deceased Gokila, the wife of the first revision petitioner/first accused, was subjected to torture and ill-treatment on account of dowry, which ultimately resulted in her death by way of self-immolation, and therefore, the charge should be altered under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. Citing the said reasons, the trial Court has allowed the petition filed by the prosecution vide the impugned order dated 20.02.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the accused 1 to 4 / revision petitioners, had filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

8. Mr. G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 4, has vehemently contended that the trial Court, before ordering the petition altering the charge, has failed to take into consideration the scope and ambit of Section 216(4) Cr.PC, as the alteration of the charge especially when the trial is in the advanced stage, would gravely prejudice the accused.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 8-A of the Dowry