ORDER

By this petition preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners/accused have challenged the order dated 22.02.2024 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, West Nimar, District- Mandleshwar in Sessions Trial No.132/2019 by which an application under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution/respondent No.1 has been allowed and the charge framed against them have been altered.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 07.12.2018 a report was lodged by the complainant Sandhyabai, respondent No.2 to the effect that on 06.12.2018 when she was in her field there was an altercation between her and the accused persons. Durga, Vikram and Tanvar abused her and she came back to her house. In the morning when she was going out Jitendra again abused her and he and Tanvar started assaulting her. Her husband and daughters Nikita and Neha came to save her. Then Jitendra pushed her as a result of which she fell down. He also assaulted her with a stone on her face above her eyes. Rekhabai and Durgabai assaulted her daughters and her by hands and fists. Thereafter all the accused threatened them with life.

3. On the basis of the report lodged by the complainant, FIR was registered and investigation was commenced during course of which statements of witnesses including that of complainant Sandhyabai were recorded and documents were collected including Discharge Ticket of Vijaylaxmi Hospital and Research Center where she had been treated from 08.12.2018 up to 10.12.2018. Upon completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed by the Police before the Court concerned and eventually charges were framed against the petitioners for offences punishable under Section 294, 323 (4 counts) of the IPC and under Section 323/34 (4 counts) and Section 506 Part II thereof.

4. Thereafter, evidence of prosecution was commenced and complainant Sandhya Patel was examined as PW.1. In her Examination-in-Chief she stated that she was assaulted by accused particularly Jitendra with stone on her eyes and nose and that as a result of the same she had suffered fracture in her nose. Then Dr. G.P. Gupta, Medical Officer (Private Practitioner) of Vijaylaxmi hospital was examined as PW.8 who stated that on 08.12.2018 the complainant had come to the hospital for treatment and was treated by Dr.Alok Gupta who had found a fracture in her nose. He also exhibited the discharge card issued by the hospital as Exhibit P/4.

5. Thereafter application was filed by the prosecution under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. for alteration of the charges framed against the petitioners which has been allowed by the trial Court by the impugned order and charge under Section 325/34 of the IPC has been framed against the petitioners.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is absolutely no justification for framing of the aforesaid charge against the petitioners. No fresh material has been brought on record by the prosecution nor has any fresh fact been introduced which would justify framing of the aforesaid charge. The discharge card was already on record at the time of filing of charge sheet and framing of charges and likewise the statement of complainant was also the same which was at the time of lodging of the report as well as in the Court. The impugned order hence deserves to be set aside.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that doctor who has been examined before the trial Court namely; Dr. G.P. Gupta has been categorically stated that the complainant had suffered fracture in her nose in view of which charge under Section 325/34 of the IPC has rightly been framed by the trial Court against the petitioners and there is no error in the impugned order in view of which petition deserves to be dismissed.

8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the re