Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
Suresh Kumar Shukla @ Suresh Dutt Shukla - Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another - Opposite Parties
Application U/S 482 No. 5468 of 2024
Decided On : 25-10-2024
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 216, 222, and 224 - Alteration of charge - The trial Court altered the charge from Section 306 IPC to Section 302 IPC based on witness statements - The applicant contended that deletion of the charge was impermissible under Section 216 - The Court held that alteration does not equate to deletion, and the trial can proceed under the new charge. (Paras 9, 36)
(B) Judicial discretion - The Court emphasized that the power to alter charges is vested in the trial Court and can be exercised at any stage before judgment, provided it does not prejudice the accused. (Paras 17, 36)
Facts of the case:
The applicant challenged the trial Court's order changing the charge from Section 306 IPC to Section 302 IPC, arguing that the charge could not be deleted. The deceased was the applicant's wife, and the charge was based on allegations of murder due to an illicit relationship. (Paras 5, 9)
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the trial Court acted within its jurisdiction to alter the charge based on evidence presented. (Paras 36)
Issues: Whether the trial Court could delete a charge under Section 216 CrPC and the implications of such an alteration. (Paras 9, 36)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that alteration of a charge does not imply deletion and that the trial can continue under the new charge if evidence supports it. (Paras 36)
Result: Application dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Lavania, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.P. Tiwari and Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
2. In view of proposition settled on the issue involved in this case as also the fact that two witnesses of prosecution have already been examined before the trial Court namely Arun Kumar/PW-1 and Dileep Kumar Tiwari/PW-2, notice to opposite party No.2 is dispensed with.
3. Present application has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 01.06.2024, whereby the Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.03, Gonda, (in short "trial Court"), deleted/changed the charge under Section 306 IPC, framed on 11.05.2023 and framed the charge under Section 302 IPC. Relevant portion of the order dated 01.06.2024 is extracted hereinunder:-
^^vfHk;kstu dk çkFkZuk i= 23 [k vUrxZr /kkjk&216 naåçålaå Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS vkSj /kkjk&306 Hkkånålaå dk vkjksi foyksfir dj /kkjk&302 Hkkånaålaå dk vkjksi fojfpr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gSA vfHk;qDr /kkjk&302 Hkkånaålaå ds vkjksi fopj.k gsrq fnukad&10-06-2024 dks mifLFkr gksA**
4. A perusal of order dated 01.06.2024, quoted above, indicates that based upon statement of Arun Kumar/PW-1 and Dlieep Kumar Tiwari/PW-2 an application was preferred on 23.04.2024 under Section 216 Cr.P.C. with the prayer that Charge under Section 306 IPC be altered to Section 302 IPC.
5. Brief facts of the case, which are relevant, as appears from the record, are to the effect that an FIR bearing No. 198 of 2022 was lodged on 01.09.2022 under Section 302 and 201 IPC. As per this FIR, the deceased is the wife of the applicant and the applicant is the main accused and he committed the alleged crime (murdered the deceased) on account of illicit relationship with her brother-in-law.
6. After lodging of FIR, the investigation was carried out and Investigating Officer, based upon the evidence collected during investigation, filed the Charge Sheet No.1, dated 08.01.2023 under Section 306 IPC.
7. Thereafter, the trial Court framed the charges under Section 306 IPC against the applicant and upon being denied by the applicant, he was put to trial. To establish its case, the prosecution examined namely Arun Kumar/PW-1 and Dileep Kumar Tiwari/PW-2 as witnesses of the fact. These witnesses in their statements before trial Court levelled specific allegations against the applicant, according to which, applicant had committed the crime.
8. Based upon the statements of Arun Kumar/PW-1 and Dileep Kumar Tiwari/PW-2 the application under Section 216 CrPC was preferred by the prosecution and the trial Court based upon the deposition/statement of PW-1 altered/framed the charge against the accused-applicant under Section 302 IPC.
9. Challenging the impugned order dated 01.06.2024, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that no doubt in exercise of power under Section 216 CrPC the trial Court can alter or add the charge at any stage of proceedings including while dictating the final judgment, but in exercise of power under Section 216 CrPC, the trial Court can't delete the charge. The charge can only be altered or added. In the instant case, the charge under Section 306 IPC, earlier framed, has been deleted and the charge under Section 302 IPC has been framed. As such, interference of this Court is required in the order dated 01.06.2024.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention placed reliance on the judgment dated 20.07.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1026 of 2023 (Dev Narain vs. State of U.P. and Another).
11. Learned AGA opposed the prayer, sought in the instant application. He stated that order of trial Court is not liable to be interfered with on the sole ground pressed that it has no power to delete the Charge. It is for the reason that after order dated 01.06.2024 the trial would proceed against the applicant under Section 302 IPC and it is trite law that after appreciation of evidence if it is found
The trial Court can alter charges under Section 216 CrPC, and such alteration does not equate to deletion, allowing the trial to proceed under the new charge.
The power to alter the charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C. is exclusive to the Court and can be exercised at any time before the judgment is pronounced. The alteration must be founded on material availa....
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction limits intervention in Trial Court decisions unless there is a clear error or injustice, especially regarding the framing of charges under the Criminal Proced....
Alteration of charge – Merely for reason that Trial Court while passing order on application filed by respondent under Section 227 of Cr.P.C had made observation that there was no sufficient material....
The power to alter or add any charge is exclusive to the Court and there is no right in any party to seek for such addition or alteration by filing any application as a matter of right.
Alteration of charge – Jurisdiction of Section 216 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised on application made by any of parties but on its own satisfaction.
A court can alter charges prior to judgment if supported by sufficient evidence without causing prejudice to the accused.
The court has exclusive authority under Section 216(4) to order a re-trial or alteration of charges, ensuring fairness to both parties and allowing all evidence to remain on record for consideration.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the trial court has the comprehensive and unrestrained power to alter or add charges at any time before judgment is pronounced, as provided un....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
