IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed the authority to alter charges under Section 216, ensuring no prejudice to the accused while maintaining the integrity of the trial process.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

The challenge in this revision is made to the orders dated 17.02.2020 and 19.02.2020, passed in Sessions Trial No. 196 of 2007, State Vs. Kutubuddin and others, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge 4th, Dehradun (“the sessions trial”). By the impugned order dated 17.02.2020, the court observed that the offences that were committed by the revisionists and the co-accused were not done at one particular point of time, instead they were criminal acts, which were done in a chain. Therefore, no accused may be specifically charged for any specific offence, instead all the accused, including the revisionists should be charged with the same offences. This order was passed under Sections 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”). It is, thereafter, on 19.02.2020, the court framed charges under Sections 120B, 302 r/w Section 120B IPC, Section 302 r/w 201 r/w Section 120B IPC, Section 404 r/w 120B IPC, Section 467 r/w Section 120B IPC, Section 468 r/w Section 120 IPC and Section 471 r/w 120B IPC against the revisionists and all other co-accused.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. In order to appreciate the controversy, the facts, briefly stated, are as follows:-

(1) On 08.01.2006, the police received an information that a dead body, in a burnt state, was lying at a place; inquest was prepared; the dead body could not be identified. On 09.01.2006, the post mortem of the dead body was done. Subsequently, the police could not identify the dead body, therefore, the chapter was closed.

(2) On 14.02.2006, PW1 Smt. Manjeet Chawla lodged a missing report of her maternal uncle Sardar Pushpendra Singh Duggal. During the course of investigation in this missing report, on 05.08.2007, co-accused were arrested and from their possession, a Will of Pushpendra Singh and various other documents were recovered. After evidence, charge sheet was submitted and the prosecution revealed the story as follows:-

(i) The revisionists alongwith co-accused hatched a conspiracy to grab the property of deceased Pushpendra Singh.

(ii) The Will of deceased Pushpendra Singh was forged in the name of co-accused Kutubuddin. As per prosecution documents, the revisionist Nayeem Rahat is its witness. During the course of hearing, it is stated at Bar today that the revisionist Tejpal Singh is also a witness in that Will.

(iii) Some time from December, 2005, the deceased Pushpendra Singh went on missing.

(iv) On 08.01.2006, the dead body in charred condition was found, but it could not be identified.

(v) On 25.04.2007, a dead body was found at a railway track within Jalandhar Cantt. Police Station.

(vi) The revisionist Nayeem Rahat visited Jalandhar and identified the dead body as that of deceased Pushpendra Singh. He procured inquest report and death certificate of the deceased Pushpendra Singh.

4. Initially, both the revisionists were charged on 31.01.2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC. In addition to it, the revisionist Nayeem Rahat was also charged for the offences punishable under Section 201 IPC. After 27 witnesses were examined, on 17.02.2020, the court by the impugned order has observed that all the accused including the revisionists should be charged with the similar offences because the criminal act has not been done at one point of time, instead it is a chain of offences. Pursuant to order dated 17.02.2020, amended charges were framed on 19.02.2020. Both these orders are impugned.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionists would submit that both the impugned orders are bad in the eye of law. He would submit that the addition or alteration of charge under Section 216 of the Code is not a mere formality. There should be nexus between the evidence and the charges so amended. It is argued that the impugned orders do not reveal as to what was the evidence that was available before the court while observing that charges should be amended. Learned counsel would submi