The power of a trial court to alter or add charges under Section 216 Cr.P.C. is exclusive and discretionary; however, the exercise of this power is not vitiated merely because the prosecution filed an application requesting the change.

ORDER

C.A.V. on 10.06.2026 Pronounced on 24.06.2026

1. Instant criminal revision is directed against the order dated 10.08.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa in S.T. No. 158 of 2017, whereby and whereunder application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the case was fixed on 12.09.2022 for reading of additional charge against the accused petitioners .

2. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that informant’s daughter Savita Devi (since deceased) was married in the year 1997 with one Subhash Pandey. It is alleged that after some time of marriage, informant’s daughter was subjected to physical and mental cruelty leveling accusation of theft by her in-laws Gotni and elder brother-in-laws. On 16.05.2012, all the accused persons (present petitioners) at about 3:00 pm, dragged Savita Devi by hair and forcibly administered her poisonous substance in Sattu. The above incident was informed to the informant (father of the deceased) by his elder Natini (Divya Kumari) through mobile phone. Then, he rushed towards village Rapura and reached at the matrimonial home of his daughter, who was brought to Sadar Hospital, Garhwa for treatment but died.

On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, F.I.R. was registered for the offence under Sections 328, 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

3. After conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons for the offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C. The cognizance was taken for the aforesaid offence and case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

4. Initially, the charge was framed for the offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C. against the present petitioners in the month of July, 2017. The trial commenced, wherein, as per evidence of Doctor, I.O. and P.W.-4 Divya Kumari (daughter of the deceased) being sole eye –witness of the occurrence categorically revealed that the deceased was forcibly administered poison, due to which, she died. The viscera report of the deceased also corroborates the case of poisoning. Therefore, prosecution filed an application under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. for adding charge under Section 328 & 302/34 of the I.P.C.

5. The learned trial Court after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties allowed the application filed by the prosecution and charge was altered by framing the additional charge under Section 328 & 302/34 I.P.C., which has been assailed in this revision.

6. I have already heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P for State.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that under the provisions of Section 216 of the Cr.P.C., neither prosecution nor accused has any vested right to get alteration or adding of any charge, rather, this power is within the domain of the Court alone. Therefore, the learned trial Court has committed serious illegality, while allowing the application of the prosecution for adding the charge. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the reported judgment in the case of P. Kartikalakshmi vs. Sri Ganesh & Anr. (2017) 3 SCC 347 wherein at para 6, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down as under:-

“6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, we find force in the submission of the learned senior Counsel for respondent 1.