SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(All) 3081

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.
Sanoj Kumar Yadav  - Appellant 
Versus 
State Of U.P. & Ors. - Respondent 
Application U/S 482 No.6653 of 2025
Decided on : 09-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Satyendra Kumar Tiwari, Rajesh Pandey

The court may alter charges under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. at any time before judgment, emphasizing judicial discretion without allowing parties to claim alterations as a right.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 216 - Applicability of altering charges - The learned Sessions Judge altered charges from sections 302 and 307 IPC to 304 and 308 IPC upon an application for alteration of charges filed by the opposite parties - This alteration was questioned by the applicant, who asserted the court's error in admitting the application without due diligence to procedure - The court stressed on the exclusive nature of the power vested in courts to alter charges before judgment as per the spirit of Section 216. (Paras 1, 10, 12-19)

Facts of the case:
The applicant contested the alteration of charges against the opposite parties regarding an incident resulting in serious injury and subsequent death of his relative due to an alleged attack, asserting the need to retain the original charges due to the gravity of the offenses involved.

Findings of Court:
The court found no error in the proceedings of the Sessions Judge concerning the alteration of charges, confirming the approach taken was in line with legislative provisions, allowing for charge alteration by the court own motion or upon application.

Issues: The court addressed whether charges can be altered based on applications from either party and what considerations should be taken into account when framing charges.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that under Section 216, it is the prerogative of the court to alter charges, and such decisions must be consistent with the grounds for trial, emphasizing that there should be no mini-trial at the charge framing stage. The integrity of judicial discretion was upheld. (Paras 12-19)

Result: Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. criteria for framing charges. (Para 10 , 18)
3. court's power to alter charges. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. conclusion and dismissal of application. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT :

SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

1. Heard Mr. Satyendra Kumar Tewari and Mr. Rajesh Pandey, learned counsels for the applicant, Mr. Anirudh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I, Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey and Mr. Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A.’s appearing for the State.

2. The instant application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C./528 of the B.N.S.S.,2023, is directed against the order dated 03-07-2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sultanpur, in Sessions Trial No. 208 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 363 of 2023, under sections 323, 324, 342, 504, 506 readwith section 34 and section 120-B, 307 and 302 of I.P.C. whereby, the learned Sessions Judge has altered the charge u/s 302 I.P.C. to u/s 304 of I.P.C. and u/s 307 I.P.C. to u/s 308 I.P.C., thus the charges are framed under sections 323/34,342/34, 308/34,304/34,504,506,120-B of I.P.C.

3. The briefly stated facts are that the opposite parties no. 2 to 4 had an old enmity with the applicant, therefore, on 20-11-2023, in the morning, when the nephews of applicant namely, Vikas Yadav and Amit Yadav, were going for natural call, the opposite parties no. 2 to 4 tried to crush them by a vehicle namely, Bolero and when, an alarm was raised, the accused persons came out from their vehicle and started beating both the injured, with ‘Lathi-Danda’ and with sharp edged weapons and when the passersby intervened, the opposite parties no. 2 to 4 ran away from the place of occurrence. In the said incident, both the injured persons received serious injuries and they were taken to the hospital at Sultanpur, thereafter, they were referred to Trauma Centre, Lucknow. During the treatment, one of the nephew of the applicant namely, Amit Yadav died on 21-11-2023 and an information regarding his death was given at the police station on 22-11-2023.

4. The first information report bearing Case Crime No. 0363 of 2023, was initially lodged under sections 323, 324, 342, 504 & 506 of I.P.C. at Police Station-Motigarpur, District-Sultanpur and after the death of one of the injured, sections 302 & 307 of I.P.C. were added.

5. The post-mortem report, which was conducted at government hospital,Lucknow, finds mention of five injuries over the body of the deceased. The case was committed for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Sultanpur and thereafter, an application under section 216 of Cr.P.C. for altering the charges was moved on behalf of the opposite parties no. 2 to 4, on 16-05-2024, whereafter, the applicant filed objection, on 21-05-2024 and the learned trial court vide order dated 17-01-2025, allowed the application under section 216 of Cr.P.C. moved by the accused persons and altered the charges from sections 302 & 307 of I.P.C. to sections 304 & 308 of I.P.C., respectively.

6. Being aggrieved with the order dated 17-01-2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sultanpur, the applicant moved an application under section 482 Cr.P.C./528 of B.N.S.S.,2023 bearing no. 2533 of 2025, wherein this court passed an order on 18-04-2025. This court vide aforesaid order, quashed the order dated 17.1.2025 and the learned trial court was given liberty to pass appropriate order keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 216 of Cr.P.C., on it’s own instance, and also keeping in view the observations made in the order, after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned.

7. After the aforesaid order was passed, the applicant again approached the learned trial court while moving an application with order dated 18- 04-2025,wherein the order impugned dated 03-07-2025 is passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sultanpur.

8. Having at a glace of the order impugned, it is apparent that the learned Sessions Judge, has observed that though the application No. 8-B, unde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top