The court emphasized that the framing of an alternative charge under Section 302 IPC should be based on prima facie evidence and could be added during the trial if sufficient material emerged.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Saksham Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned AGA-I for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed that the learned counsels for the private opposite party have informed the learned counsel for the petitioner in writing that they shall not be appearing in the present case on behalf of the private opposite party.

3. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed the following reliefs:-

"The applicant most humbly and respectfully beg to submit that on the basis of facts mentioned in the accompanying affidavit this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the charge-sheet dated 14.02.2021, summoning order dated 04.03.2021 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate Lucknow and also the order dated 27.04.2023 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge-4 (Prevention of Corruption Act) Lucknow whereby charge had been framed under Section 498(A)/304(B)/302 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (the certified copy of the charge-sheet dated 14.02.2021, summoning order dated 04.03.2021 and order dated 27.04.2023 is contained in ANNEXURE-1, 2 & 3 respectively) or to pass any other order in the interest of Equity, Justice and Good Conscience."

4. The question to be adjudicated in this petition is that as to whether the learned trial court can frame charge for Section 302 IPC as an alternative charge without having any clinching material/evidence in respect of Section 302 IPC in a case where charge relating to Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been framed by this Court on the basis of the FIR and the charge sheet, which has been filed only under those Sections, not under Section 302 IPC.

5. The precise facts of the case are that the FIR bearing FIR No.0949 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station-P.G.I., District-Lucknow has been filed by the father of the deceased against his son-in-law Vikas Verma and other family members, namely, Chandrabhan (father-in-law of the deceased), Rajani (mother-in-law of the deceased), Pushpendra (Devar) and Rupali (Nanad).

6. Pursuant to the aforesaid FIR, investigation has been conducted and after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed only against Vikas Verma (husband of the deceased) under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and names of other co-accused persons have been dropped. Admittedly, no protest application has been filed on behalf of the complainant/ informant against the charge sheet whereby the names of other co-accused persons have been dropped. Learned trial court took cognizance of the charge sheet on 04.03.2021 and issued summons on the same date i.e. 04.03.2021 against the present petitioner only.

7. Learned trial court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, Special Court No.4, (Prevention of Corruption Act) Lucknow has passed an order dated 27.04.2023 (Annexure No.3) framing charges against the petitioner under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. By means of the aforesaid order, learned trial court has framed alternative charge under Section 302 IPC also against the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that undisputedly, this is the prerogative of the learned trial court to frame any charge on the basis of material/evidence available on record. Even the learned trial court may alter or add any charge at any time before pronouncement of judgment under Section 216 Cr.P.C. However, no alternative charge can be framed without having any material or evidence to that effect. In the present case, no allegation of any kind whatsoever has been levelled against the petitioner in respect of murder, even during the course of investigation, no cogent material or reliable evidence has been found by the prosecution to suggest that the petitioner may be charged under Section 302 IPC, the