The court affirmed that charges can be altered at any stage based on prima facie evidence without evaluating the probative value, allowing for the addition of a murder charge when warranted.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The present revision is directed against the order dated 18.11.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rairangpur in S.T. Case No. 17 of 2018, whereby, the petition filed by the petitioner- informant for alteration of charge under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. was rejected.

2. Sans unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the petitioner lodged an FIR on 13.01.2018 before the Rairangpur Town Police Station alleging that his daughter, who was given in marriage to opposite party no.3 on 28.04.2015, was subjected to constant physical and mental cruelty by him and the other accused persons, who are her in-laws. It was further alleged that the opposite party no.2, who is the father-in-law, used to commit rape on his daughter-in-law and when she tried to complain, her husband questioned the paternity of their six months’ old son and also threatened to kill the child. The victim thereafter narrated the incident to her brother and sister-in-law over phone as well as by sending messages on whatsapp. On 12.01.2018, the petitioner received a phone call from opposite party no.2 that his daughter had been admitted to the hospital with 90% burn injuries. On the next day, i.e. on 13.01.2018, at about 11.20 p.m. the victim succumbed to her injuries. In the meantime on 13.01.2018 at about 5 a.m., the petitioner-informant lodged the FIR which came to be registered as Rairangpur Town P.S. Case No.6 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 21 of 2018 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Rairangpur for the offences under Sections 498 - A/307/376(2)(f)/376(2)(n)/506/201/34 IPC . After completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the father-in-law (opposite party no.2) under - A/307/376(2)(n)/506/201/34 and against other accused persons under -A/306/201/34 . Learned S.D.J.M., Rairangpur vide order dated 17.03.2018 however took cognizance of the offences under -A/302/376(2)(f)(n)201/34 of against the father-in-law (opposite party no.2) and under -A/302/201/34 against the other accused persons. Challenging such order of cognizance, the accused persons approached this Court by filing CRLMC No. 329 of 2019 and CRLMC No. 367 of 2019, both of which were dismissed vide common order passed by this Court on 13.10.2020. Subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Rairangpur for trial being numbered as S.T. Case No. 17 of 2018. Considering the materials on record, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charge under -A/ 376(2)(f)(n)/306/201/34 of against the father-in-law (opposite party no.2), under -A/306/201/34 of against the husband (opposite party no.3) and under Sections 306/201/34 of against the other accused persons. In other words, no charge under Section 302 of was framed despite cognizance being taken of the said offence. The petitioner-informant having been permitted to appear in the case through his counsel, challenged the order framing charge in CRLREV No.235/2021 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 09.08.2021 by passing the following order:

“1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The petitioner, who is the informant in this case, has challenged the order 8.3.2021 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rairangpur in S.T. No.17 of 2018 not to frame the charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused persons and discharge them from the said offence