HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Ramrathi Chauhan .....Revisionist(s)

Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 89 HON'BLE DIVESH CHANDRA SAMANT, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Revisionist; learned AGA for State and perused the material available on record.

3. This criminal revision has been preferred challenging the order dated 14.11.2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / F.T.C.-1, (Offence against Women), Jaunpur in S.T. No.447 of 2024, (State versus Ravishanker Chauhan and others) arising out of Case Crime No.177 of 2023, under Section 376-D IPC, Police Station Sikrara, District Jaunpur whereby the application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. filed by Revisionist for addition and alteration of charges under Sections 376(2)(n), 354-C IPC & 66-E Indian Technology Act has been rejected.

4. The main contentions raised by learned counsel for the Revisionist are that impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is wholly illegal, unjust, unreasoned and against the evidence available on record because learned Trial Court had not considered the statement of victim as well as witnesses under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. wherein it has been stated that victim was subjected to rape by blackmailing her with a video which was recorded while taking bath. The learned Trial Court has failed to consider this evidence and not framed the charges under Sections 376(2)(n), 354-C IPC & 66-E Indian Technology Act.

5. Learned AGA has opposed the aforesaid arguments and submitted that the Revisionist is father-in-law of the victim/informant and the impugned order is just and proper, therefore, there is no need to interfere.

6. As per copy of FIR available on record, the informant Vindeshwari Devi has lodged an FIR against Dharmendra Chauhan and Ravi Singh Chauhan alleging that both have made video of the victim while she was taking bath and on the basis of that video they blackmailed her and made physical relations with her. When the trial of the case started before the Trial Court the statement of the victim Vindeshwari Devi was recorded as PW-1 wherein she has not supported the prosecution story in her cross examination and stated that under the influence of some villagers she has given an application in the Police Station, the application was written by her on the dictation of Police personnel and the Dharmendra Chauhan and Ravi Singh Chauhan have neither made any video and nor blackmailed her or made any physical relation with her. She was declared hostile and cross examined by the prosecution wherein she again stated "

यह कहना गलत ह ै िक इस मुकदमे के

मुिल्जमान रिवशंकर व रवीन्द्र कुमार उफर् धमेर्न्द्र ने मेरा वीिडयो बनाकर मुझे ब्लैकमेल िकया था व Since the PW-1 is the victim of the मेरे साथ कई बार शारीिरक सम्बन्ध बनाये थे।"

incident hence no one can be witness better than her.

7. On the alteration of charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi vs State of Gujarat and others: (2004) 5 SCC 347, it has been held as follows:-

" 10. Therefore, if during trial, the trial Court on a consideration of broad probabilities of the case based upon total effect of the evidence and documents produced is satisfied that any addition or alteration of the charge is necessary, it is free to do so, and there can be no legal bar to appropriately act as the exigencies of the case warrant or necessitate."

8. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Trial Court has discussed at the length about the probability and possibility regarding the addition or alteration of charge and rejected the application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. by the impugned order by mentioning cogent reasons and grounds which does not warrant any doubt. From the statement of PW-1 victim there appears no probability for the alteration and addition of charges available for which the application was made befor