Patna High Court
Md. Makbool Alam vs The State Of Bihar on 27 June, 2025
Author: Jitendra Kumar
Bench: Jitendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.471 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-64 Year-2011 Thana- WARISLIGANJ District- Nawada
======================================================
Md. Makbool Alam, Son of Late Noor Mohammad, Resident of Village-
Kadirganj, PS- Nawada Town (Kadirganj O.P.), Dist- Nawada
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ayasha Khatoon, D/o- Mansur Alam, Wife of Late Md. Sajjad Alam, R/o-
Maphi Gali, PS- Warisaliganj Dist- Nawada
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Satyapal Singh, Advocate
Mr. Om Prakash Srivastava, Advocate
For the State : Md. Zainul Abedin, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-06-2025
The present criminal revision petition has been
preferred by the petitioner against impugned order dated
14.03.2023
, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII,
Nawada passed in Sessions Trial No. 323 of 2023/C.I.S. No.
3285 of 2014, arising out of Warisliganj P.S. Case No. 64 of
2011 has rejected the application.
Factual Background of the Case
2. The application under Section 216 Cr.PC was filed
by the prosecution at the stage of final argument when statement
of the accused-Ayasha Khatoon was recorded under Section 313
Cr.PC after recording of prosecution evidence. The accused-
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.471 of 2023 dt.27-06-2025
2/19
Ayasha Khatoon, who is O.P. No.2 herein, was facing charge
under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. However, as per
the application of the prosecution, sufficient evidence had come
on record in the evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-5 and P.W.-8 to frame
additional charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
However, the application filed by the prosecution was opposed
by the accused submitting that there was no sufficient material
to frame additional charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code against the accused. However, after hearing both the
parties and perusal of the evidence on record, learned Trial
Court has dismissed the application of the prosecution for
framing additional charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, holding that there is no substance or merit in the
application of the prosecution. Learned Trial Court has
exhaustively dealt with evidence of all the prosecution witnesses
including the injury report and the Doctor to find there is no
sufficient material to frame additional charge under Section 302
of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-Ayasha Khatoon
for facing the trial.
3. Hence, being aggrieved by such order, the
petitioner has preferred the present criminal revision petition.
4. The case is at the stage of admission.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.471 of 2023 dt.27-06-2025
3/19
5. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
learned Trial Court has rejected the application filed on behalf
of the prosecution arbitrarily and erroneously. There has been
sufficient material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses to
add charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against
the respondent No.2. Hence, the impugned order is not
sustainable in the eye of law.
7. However, per contra, learned APP for the State
vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner, submitting that
there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. He
further submits that it is discretionary power of the Trial Court
to add any additional charge during trial as per the material on
record. He also submits that under revisional jurisdiction, this
Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the impugned order.
He also submits that it is settled principle of law that if two
views are possible as per the material on record and the Trial
Court has taken one reasonable and plausible view after
appreciation of evidence/material on record, the same cannot be
interfered under revisional jurisdiction, because the revisional
Court is not required to re-appreciate the material or evidence
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.471 of 2023 dt.27-06-2025
4/19
on record to come to its own conclusion and supplant the view
of Trial Court by its own. Hence, the petition filed by the
petitioner is shorn of any merit liable to be dismissed in limine.
Extent and Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction of the
High Court
8. Before I proceed to consider the rival submissions
of the parties, it is desirable to see the extent and scope of
revisional jurisdiction of High Court.
9. As per the statutory provisions and judicial
precedents, it is settled principle of law that the revisional
jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court is a kind of paternal
or supervisory jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section
401 Cr.PC in order to correct the miscarriage of justice, arising
out of judgment, order, sentence or finding of subordinate
Courts by looking into correctness, legality or propriety of any
finding, sentence or order as recorded or passed by subordinate
Courts and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such
inferior Courts.
10. However, the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by
the High Court is discretionary in nature to be applied
judiciously in the interest of justice.
11. Under revisional jurisdiction, the High Court is
not entitled to re-appreciate the evidence for itself as if it is
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.471 of 2023 dt.27-06-2025
5/19
acting as a Court of appeal, because revisional power cannot be
equated with the power of an Appellate Court, nor can it be
treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Hence,
ordinarily, it is not appropriate for the High Court to re-
appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the
same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the
Trial and Appellate Court, unless there are exceptional situations
like glaring error of law or procedure and perversity of finding,
causing flagrant miscarriage of justice, brought to the notice of
the High Court. Such exceptional situations have been
enumerated by Hon’ble Apex Court on several occasions which
are as follows:-
(i) when it is found that the trial court has no jurisdiction
to try the case or;
(ii) when it is found that the order under revision suffers
from glaring illegality or;
(iii) where the trial court has illegally shut out the evidence
which otherwise ought to have been considered or;
(iv) where the judgment/order is based on inadmissible
evidence, or;
(v) where the material evidence which clinches the issue
has been overlooked either by the Trial Court or the Appellate
Court or;
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.471 of 2023 dt.27-06-2025
6/19
(vi) where the finding recorded is based on no evidence or;
(vii) where there is perverse appreciation of evidence or;
(viii) where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily
or capriciously or;
(ix) where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the
offence, which is invalid under the law.
12. However, it has been cautioned by Hon’ble
Supreme Court that the aforesaid kinds of situations are
illustrative and not exhaustive.
13. In regard to revisional jurisdiction, one may refer
to the following judicial precedents:
(i) Akalu Ahir and Ors. vs Ramdeo Ram
(1973) 2 SCC 583
(ii) K. Chinnaswami Reddy vs State of A.P.
1962 SCC Online SC 32
(iii) Duli Chand Vs Delhi Administration
(1975) 4 SCC 649
(1992) 4 SCC 305
(1998) 7 SCC 323
(vi) State of Kerala Vs. Puttumana I. J. Namboodiri
(1999) 2 SCC 452
(vii) Thankappan Nada & Ors. Vs. Gopala Krishnan
(2002) 9 SCC 393
(viii) Jagannath Chaudhary Vs. Ramayan Singh
(2002) 5 SCC 659
(ix) Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P. Singh & Ors.
Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) & Anr.
(2002) 6 SCC 650
(x) Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam
(2009) 13 SCC 330
(xi) Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander
(2012) 9 SCC 460
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.471 of 2023 dt.27-06-2025
7/19
(2014) 1 SCC 87
(2015) 2 SCC 721
(xiv) Sanjaysinh R. Chavan Vs. D. G. Phalke
(2015) 3 SCC 123
(xv) Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh
(2022) 8 SCC 204
14. Here it would be also profitable to refer to Ashish
Chadha Vs. Asha Kumari & Another as report in (2012) 1
SCC 680 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with
revisional jurisdiction of High Court in the matter of framing of
charge. In that case, learned Trial Court had framed charge
against the accused, whereas High Court, after re-
appreciation/re-appraisal of material on record, set aside the
order of the Trial Court finding no prima facie case against the
accused. In this context, Hon’ble Apex Court in para-20 of the
judgment held that High Court should not have done it in its
revisional jurisdiction because it is the Trial Court which has to
decide whether evidence on record is sufficient to make out a
prima facie case against the accused so as to frame charge
against him.
15. Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray
Gulabrao Phalke, as reported in (2015) 3 SCC 123, may be
also referred to profitably. Here, Hon’ble Apex Court was
dealing with a situation where the concerned Judicial Magistrate
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.471 of 2023 dt.27-06-2025
8/19
had accepted the closure report filed by the police with the
reference to the accused closing the criminal proceeding against
him. This order passed by learned Magistrate was challenged by
the Complainant before the High Court in Criminal Revision
and the High Court had set aside the order passed by learned
Magistrate. Here, Hon’ble Apex Court held that learned
Magistrate had gone through the entire record of the case, not
limiting to the report filed by the police and had passed a
reasoned order holding that it was not a fit case to take
cognizance for the purpose of issuing process to the appellant.
Unless the order passed by the Magistrate was perverse or the
view taken by the court was wholly unreasonable or there was
non-consideration of any relevant material or there was palpable
misreading of records, the Revisional Court was not justified in
setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible.
Present Case
16. Coming to the case on hand, I find that the
prosecution has filed one application under Section 216 Cr.PC
for framing of additional charge under Section 302 IPC.
However, learned Trial Court has found, after perusal of the
evidence on record, that there is no sufficient material to frame
charge against the accused under Section 302 IPC, and hence,
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.471 of 2023 dt.27-06-2025
9/19
the application filed by the prosecution for framing additional
charge was dismissed.
Meaning and Import of Section 216 Cr.PC
17. For better consideration of the matter, it would be
imperative to know the meaning and the import of Section 216
Cr.PC which reads as follows :
“216. Court may alter charge.
(1) Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time
before judgment is pronounced.
(2) Every such alteration or addition shall be read and
explained to the accused.
(3) If the alteration or addition to a charge is such that
proceeding immediately with the trial is not likely, in the
opinion of the Court, to prejudice the accused in his defence
or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case, the Court may,
in its discretion, after such alteration or addition has been
made, proceed with the trial as if the altered or added charge
has been the original charge.
(4) If the alteration or addition is such that proceeding
immediately with the trial is likely, in the opinion of the
Court, to prejudice the accused or the prosecutor as
aforesaid, the Court may, either direct a new trial or adjourn
the trial for such period as may be necessary.
(5) If the offence stated in the altered or added charge is one
for the prosecution of which previous sanction is necessary,
the case shall not be proceeded with until such sanction is
obtained, unless sanction has been already obtained for a
prosecution on the same facts as those on which the altered
or added charge is founded.”
18. Here, it would be profitable to refer to Jasvinder
Saini v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 7 SCC 256, wherein
Hon’ble Supreme Court, after adverting to Section 216 Cr.PC,
has held as follows:
“11. A plain reading of the above would show that the court’s
power to alter or add any charge is unrestrained provided
such addition and/or alteration is made before the judgment
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.471 of 2023 dt.27-06-2025
10/19is pronounced. Sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 216 deal
with the procedure to be followed once the court decides to
alter or add any charge. Section 217 of the Code deals with
the recall of witnesses when the charge is altered or added
by the court after commencement of the trial. There can, in
the light of the above, be no doubt about the competence of
the court to add or alter a charge at any time before the
judgment. The circumstances in which such addition or
alteration may be made are not, however, stipulated in
Section 216. It is all the same trite that the question of any
such addition or alternation would generally arise either
because the court finds the charge already framed to be
defective for any reason or because such addition is
considered necessary after the commencement of the trial
having regard to the evidence that may come before the
court.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
19. In Sohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (1990) 4 SCC
580, Hon’ble Apex Court explaining the meaning of the phrase
“alter or to add any charge” has held as follows:
“12. Add to any charge means the addition of a new
charge. An alteration of a charge means changing or
variation of an existing charge or making of a different
charge. Under this section addition to and alteration of a
charge or charges implies one or more existing charge or
charges. When the appellants Vijya Bai and Jiya Bai were
discharged of all the charges and no charge existed against
them, naturally an application under Section 216 CrPC
was not maintainable in their case. In cases of appellants
Sohan Lal, Padam Chand and Vishnu against whom the
charge under Section 427 IPC was already in existence
there of course could arise the question of addition to or
alteration of the charge. The learned Magistrate therefore
while disposing of the application under Section 216
CrPC only had no jurisdiction to frame charges against the
appellants Vijya Bai and Jiya Bai. ……….
13. As regards the other three appellants, namely, Sohan
Lal, Padam Chand and Vishnu they were already accused
in the case. Section 216 CrPC envisages the accused and
the additions to the alterations of charge may be done at
any time before judgment is pronounced. The learned
Magistrate on the basis of the evidence on record was
satisfied that charges ought also to be framed under the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.471 of 2023 dt.27-06-2025
11/19other sections with which they were charged in the charge-
sheet……………………………….”
(Emphasis Supplied)
20. In CBI v. Karimullah Osan Khan, (2014) 11
SCC 538, Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows:
“17. Section 216 CrPC gives considerable power to the trial
court, that is, even after the completion of evidence,
arguments heard and the judgment reserved, it can alter and
add to any charge, subject to the conditions mentioned
therein. The expressions “at any time” and before the
“judgment is pronounced” would indicate that the power is
very wide and can be exercised, in appropriate cases, in the
interest of justice, but at the same time, the courts should
also see that its orders would not cause any prejudice to the
accused.
18. Section 216 CrPC confers jurisdiction on all courts,
including the Designated Courts, to alter or add to any
charge framed earlier, at any time before the judgment is
pronounced and sub-sections (2) to (5) prescribe the
procedure which has to be followed after that addition or
alteration. Needless to say, the courts can exercise the power
of addition or modification of charges under Section 216
CrPC, only when there exists some material before the court,
which has some connection or link with the charges sought
to be amended, added or modified. In other words, alteration
or addition of a charge must be for an offence made out by
the evidence recorded during the course of trial before the
court.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
21. In Anant Prakash Sinha v. State of Haryana
(2016) 6 SCC 105, Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows:
“18. … the court can change or alter the charge if there is
defect or something is left out. The test is, it must be
founded on the material available on record. It can be on the
basis of the complaint or the FIR or accompanying
documents or the material brought on record during the
course of trial. It can also be done at any time before
pronouncement of judgment. It is not necessary to advert to
each and every circumstance. Suffice it to say, if the court
has not framed a charge despite the material on record, it has
the jurisdiction to add a charge. Similarly, it has the authority
to alter the charge. The principle that has to be kept in mind
is that the charge so framed by the Magistrate is in accord
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.471 of 2023 dt.27-06-2025
12/19with the materials produced before him or if subsequent
evidence comes on record. It is not to be understood that
unless evidence has been let in, charges already framed
cannot be altered, for that is not the purport of Section 216
CrPC.
19. In addition to what we have stated hereinabove, another
aspect also has to be kept in mind. It is obligatory on the part
of the court to see that no prejudice is caused to the accused
and he is allowed to have a fair trial. There are in-built
safeguards in Section 216 CrPC. It is the duty of the trial
court to bear in mind that no prejudice is caused to the
accused as that has the potentiality to affect a fair trial.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
22. In P. Kartikalakshmi v. Sri Ganesh, (2017) 3
SCC 347, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
“6. …………………………………………………………
Section 216 CrPC empowers the Court to alter or add any
charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. It is
now well settled that the power vested in the Court is
exclusive to the Court and there is no right in any party to
seek for such addition or alteration by filing any application
as a matter of right. It may be that if there was an omission
in the framing of the charge and if it comes to the knowledge
of the Court trying the offence, the power is always vested in
the Court, as provided under Section 216 CrPC to either alter
or add the charge and that such power is available with the
Court at any time before the judgment is pronounced. It is an
enabling provision for the Court to exercise its power under
certain contingencies which comes to its notice or brought to
its notice. In such a situation, if it comes to the knowledge of
the Court that a necessity has arisen for the charge to be
altered or added, it may do so on its own and no order need
to be passed for that purpose. After such alteration or
addition when the final decision is rendered, it will be open
for the parties to work out their remedies in accordance with
law.
7. We were taken through Sections 221 and 222 CrPC in this
context. In the light of the facts involved in this case, we are
only concerned with Section 216 CrPC. We, therefore, do
not propose to examine the implications of the other
provisions to the case on hand. We wish to confine ourselves
to the invocation of Section 216 and rest with that. In the
light of our conclusion that the power of invocation of
Section 216 CrPC is exclusively confined with the Court as
an enabling provision for the purpose of alteration or
addition of any charge at any time before pronouncement of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.471 of 2023 dt.27-06-2025
13/19the judgment, we make it clear that no party, neither de facto
complainant nor the accused or for that matter the
prosecution has any vested right to seek any addition or
alteration of charge, because it is not provided under Section
216 CrPC. If such a course to be adopted by the parties is
allowed, then it will be well-nigh impossible for the criminal
court to conclude its proceedings and the concept of speedy
trial will get jeopardised..”
(Emphasis supplied)
23. In Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy v. State of A.P.,
(2020) 12 SCC 467, Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with
the situation, where application of the prosecution under Section
216 Cr.PC to add additional charge under Sections 406 and 420
of IPC was rejected by learned Trial Court. However, on
revision, High Court had set aside the Trial Court’s order,
holding that the Trial Court had not disclosed the reasons for
concluding that ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC were
not attracted, and hence, the High Court had directed framing of
additional charge under Sections 420 and 406 IPC evaluating
the statement of witnesses brought on record.
24. After discussing the judicial precedents including
P. Kartiklakshmi case (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy case (supra) has held as follows:
“21. From the above line of precedents, it is clear that
Section 216 provides the court an exclusive and wide-
ranging power to change or alter any charge. The use of the
words “at any time before judgment is pronounced” in sub-
section (1) empowers the court to exercise its powers of
altering or adding charges even after the completion of
evidence, arguments and reserving of the judgment. The
alteration or addition of a charge may be done if in the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.471 of 2023 dt.27-06-2025
14/19opinion of the court there was an omission in the framing of
charge or if upon prima facie examination of the material
brought on record, it leads the court to form a presumptive
opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients
constituting the alleged offence. The test to be adopted by
the court while deciding upon an addition or alteration of a
charge is that the material brought on record needs to have a
direct link or nexus with the ingredients of the alleged
offence. Addition of a charge merely commences the trial for
the additional charges, whereupon, based on the evidence, it
is to be determined whether the accused may be convicted
for the additional charges. The court must exercise its
powers under Section 216 judiciously and ensure that no
prejudice is caused to the accused and that he is allowed to
have a fair trial. The only constraint on the court’s power is
the prejudice likely to be caused to the accused by the
addition or alteration of charges. Sub-section (4) accordingly
prescribes the approach to be adopted by the courts where
prejudice may be caused.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
25. In Soundarajan v. State, (2023) 16 SCC 141,
Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph no.16 of the judgment has
held as follows:
“17. We find that, in this case, the charge has been framed
very casually. The trial courts ought to be very meticulous
when it comes to the framing of charges. In a given case, any
such error or omission may lead to acquittal and/or a long
delay in trial due to an order of remand which can be passed
under sub-section (2) of Section 464CrPC. Apart from the
duty of the trial court, even the Public Prosecutor has a duty
to be vigilant, and if a proper charge is not framed, it is his
duty to apply to the court to frame an appropriate charge.”
(Emphasis supplied)
26. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the latest judgment
of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Raj Kumar Arora
& Ors. as reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 819, has
elaborately discussed the extent and mandate of Section 216
Cr.PC referring to various judicial precedents and has held as
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.471 of 2023 dt.27-06-2025
15/19
follows:
“143. Under this provision, any Court is empowered to
“alter” or “add” to any charge framed against the accused, at
any time before the judgment is pronounced. Therefore, an
outer time limit is set i.e. the power conferred upon the
Courts cannot be exercised after a decision is pronounced in
the matter. Although the provision does not expressly
provide for the stage of the trial after which the power under
Section 216 CrPC can be exercised, yet logic and rationale
obviously requires it to be exercised after a charge has been
framed by the Trial Court under Section 228 CrPC. For if no
charge has been framed, there arises no occasion to add or
alter it. As a natural corollary, if an accused has already been
discharged under Section 227 CrPC, no application or action
under Section 216 CrPC would be maintainable.
144. The Court may alter or add to any charge either upon its
own motion or on an application by the parties concerned.
Therefore, such a power can be invoked by the Court suo
moto as well. This power under Section 216 CrPC is
exclusive to the concerned Court and no party can seek such
an addition or alteration of charge as a matter of right by
filing an application. It would be the Trial Court which must
decide whether a proper charge has been framed or not, at
the appropriate stage of the trial. On a consideration of the
broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the
evidence and documents adduced, the Trial Court must
satisfy itself that the exercise of power under Section 216 is
necessary. The provision has been enacted with the salutary
object to ensure a fair and full trial to the accused person(s)
in each case.
149. Therefore, to alter a charge would be to vary an existing
charge and make a different charge. Hence, when the Court
exercises its power under Section 216, either on its own
motion or on an application made by the parties, and “alters”
a charge, it would be necessary that the existing charge be
varied and a new charge be
made………………………………………………………….
151. Section 216 CrPC provides the Court with the power to
do two things – One, alter a charge and two, add to a charge.
Nowhere, does the provision expressly or by necessary
implication lead to an inference that a charge could be
deleted altogether. No doubt, the Court is given an expansive
and wide-ranging power. However, that must not mean that
the powers conferred are without any limits.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.471 of 2023 dt.27-06-2025
16/19
27. As such, it emerges from the statutory provisions
of Section 216 Cr.PC and the relevant judicial precedents that
Section 216 Cr.PC empowers the Court to alter or add to any
charge already framed against the accused, at any time
subsequent to framing of charge, but before pronouncement of
the judgment.
28. The occasion for such alteration of or addition to
the charge already framed arises in two situations, firstly, when
the Court finds the charge already framed to be defective for any
reason or when the Court considers addition to charge
necessary, having regard to the evidence which has come before
it during trial.
29. An alteration of a charge means change or
variation of an additional charge or making of a different
charge. However, altercation of charge does not permit
discharge of the accused by deletion of charge, because after
framing of charge, trial results only in acquittal or conviction.
In the midst of the trial, the accused who is facing the charge,
can not be discharged. If the accused is aggrieved by framing of
charge against him, he has remedy in higher Court by way of
appropriate proceeding against the order framing charge, but
Section 216 Cr.PC cannot be invoked by the Court to discharge
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.471 of 2023 dt.27-06-2025
17/19
the accused or delete the charge already framed against the
accused.
30. It also emerges that in case an accused is already
discharged, or no charge exists against an accused, Section 216
Cr.PC cannot be invoked by the Court to frame charge against
him, because Court cannot go back to the previous stage of
framing of charge.
31. It also emerges that Section 216 Cr.PC can be
invoked by the Court suo motu or on an application by the
parties concerned. However, the power under Section 216 Cr.PC
is exclusive to the concerned Court and no party can seek such
an addition or alteration of the charge, as a matter of right by
filing an application.
32. It also emerges that exercise of power under
Section 216 Cr.PC by the Court should not be arbitrary, but
based on relevant material on record in the form of material
collected during investigation or the evidence brought on record
during the trial.
33. It also emerges that the Court invoking power
under Section 216 Cr.PC has also duty to ensure that no
prejudice is caused to the accused or the prosecution by addition
or alteration of charge.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.471 of 2023 dt.27-06-2025
18/19
34. Now coming back to the case on hand, I find that
the accused Ayasha Khatoon who is opposite party No.2 herein
was facing charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution evidence was recorded and the statement of the
accused was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC and
thereafter the matter was fixed for final argument. However, at
this stage, the application was filed by the prosecution under
Section 216 Cr.PC for adding charge under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code, pleading that there was sufficient evidence
on record. However, from the impugned order, it transpires that
learned Trial Court perused the whole materials on record and
elaborately appraised the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
and came to the finding that there was no sufficient material to
add charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
35. I have already discussed the extent and scope of
revisional jurisdiction of this Court. I find that no ground is
made out by the petitioner for interference by this Court in the
impugned order. The only submission of the petitioner is that as
per the evidence on record brought during the trial, the
additional charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
should have been framed by the learned Trial Court, but I find
that learned Trial Court has elaborately appraised the whole
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.471 of 2023 dt.27-06-2025
19/19
prosecution evidence on record and came to the finding that
there is no sufficient material to frame additional charge under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned order is a
reasoned order, with no perversity or arbitrariness in
appreciation of evidence on record. The view formed by learned
Trial Court is possible and plausible one and even if any other
view is possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the view
taken by the learned Trial Court cannot be interfered under
revisional jurisdiction, for want of any perversity or
arbitrariness in the finding.
36. Hence, the present petition is liable to be
dismissed for want of any merit in the petition. Accordingly, the
present revision petition is dismissed in limine.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
Ravishankar/-
AFR/NAFR A.F.R. CAV DATE N.A Uploading Date 02.07.2025 Transmission Date 02.07.2025