JUDGMENT :

S.K. SAHOO, J.

1. This is an application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned order dated 21.04.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Paralakhemundi in S.C. Case No. 9 of 2000 in allowing the petition filed by the learned Public Prosecutor to add the offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, in addition to the existing charges under sections 498-A/304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Trial Court has taken into account the fact that the deceased committed suicide in her matrimonial home within three months of her marriage and available materials on record indicate that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death and the prosecution has brought on record a suicidal note of the deceased where from it is inferred by the learned trial Court that the deceased wanted to put an end to her life because she was unable to bear the persisting humiliation of her parents by her in-laws. The prosecution has also brought on record one letter which has been written by the deceased few days prior to her committing suicide. The learned Trial Court has also taken into consideration that there are materials available on record to indicate that when the deceased was burning inside the bath room, instead of taking immediate steps to break open the door of the bath room and extinguish the fire, the in-laws family members intimated the fire officer and police to come to the spot. The learned Trial Court further found that there are ample materials on record to make out an offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, invoking its power under section 216 of Cr.P.C., the petition filed by the prosecution to add the charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was allowed. The petitioners were then given an option to recall any of the prosecution witnesses already examined and accordingly, the petitioners filed a petition to recall P.W.s 26, 28 and 29 only who were the father, mother and brother of the deceased and accordingly, those witnesses were summoned by the learned Trial Court for further cross examination.

3. Mr. Sangram Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners while challenging the impugned order contended that since no charge sheet was submitted under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and there was no clinching material to constitute such offence, the learned Trial Court should not have added the charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further contended that when twenty nine prosecution witnesses have already been examined and after closure of the prosecution evidence, accused statement was recorded by the learned Trial Court and after the argument was heard from both the sides, at this juncture, the learned trial Court should not have allowed the prayer which has been made by the prosecution to add the charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further stated that the learned Trial Court has committed serious illegality in allowing such petition prior to the pronouncement of the judgment and therefore, the impugned order of addition of the charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code should be quashed.

4. Mr. Prem Kumar Patnaik, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate supported the impugned order and contended that there was no dearth of power with the learned trial Court to pass such order.

5. Section 216 of Cr.P.C. deals with the power of the Court to alter the charge. If during trial, the Trial Court on consideration of broad probabilities of the case based upon total effect of the evidence and documents produced is satisfied that any addition or alteration of the charge is necessary, it is free to do so, and there can be no legal bar to appropriately act as the exigencies of the case warrant or necessitate. The object of section 216 of Cr.P.C. is to ensure a fair trial and the Court is to se