Uttarakhand High Court
Sarthak Chhillar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 22 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Judgment reserved on:-14.08.2025
Judgment delivered on:-22.08.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 307 of 2025
22nd August, 2025
Sarthak Chhillar .........Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Vikash Uniyal, B.H. for the State.
Ms. Snigdha Tiwari, Advocate through video conferencing and Mr.
Yogesh Kumar, Advocate i/b Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, Advocate for
respondent no.3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of the instant criminal revision, the
revisionist is seeking setting aside of the impugned
judgment and order dated 09.05.2025 passed in
Sessions Trial No.138 of 2024, State of Uttarakhand Vs.
Sarthak Chillar, pending in the court of learned Ist
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun, for
the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323,
324, 325, 505, 506 and 307 of IPC, whereby the charges
were framed against the revisionist for the
aforementioned sections.
2. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR
No.96 of 2024 was lodged by respondent no.3 on
07.05.2024 under Sections 147, 323 and 506 of IPC
against the revisionist, alleging therein that on
03.05.2024, the revisionist along with certain other
persons, had assaulted him, as a result of which he
sustained injuries. Upon completion of the investigation,
1
a charge sheet was filed before the learned Chief judicial
Magistrate, Dehradun u/s 147, 323, 506, 148, 149, 324,
325, 504 and 308 IPC, who, considering that the offence
under Section 308 of IPC was exclusively triable by the
sessions court, committed the matter to the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, for trial.
Subsequently, an application being Paper No.6-A was
moved by respondent no.3 seeking addition of charge
under Section 307 of IPC against the revisionist. The
revisionist had also filed an objection to application
Paper No.6A being Paper No.8-A before the learned Ist
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun,
objecting to the addition of Section 307 of IPC against
him. The revisionist also filed an application being Paper
No.9-A before the learned Ist Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Dehradun, praying for his discharge
under Section 308 of IPC and for sending the case back
to learned Judicial Magistrate for trial. All the
aforementioned applications came to be decided by the
learned Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Dehradun, vide the impugned judgment and order dated
09.05.2025. The learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Dehradun, added a charge under
Section 307 of IPC while rejecting the application Paper
No.9A and framed the charges under Sections 147, 148,
323, 324, 325, 504, 506 and 307 of IPC against the
revisionist. Hence, the present criminal revision.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits
that the alleged incident is said to have taken place on
03.05.2024; however, the FIR came to be lodged at a
later date on 07.05.2024, after an inordinate delay of
four days. The learned counsel submits that before
2
lodging of FIR respondent no.3 had procured a medical
examination from a private hospital. The learned counsel
further submits that respondent no.3 deliberately
avoided examination at a government hospital, which
clearly casts a doubt on the genuineness of the
respondent no.3’s story and shows that it is concocted.
4. The learned counsel for the revisionist also
contends that the FIR was initially registered under less
severe provisions, namely, Sections 147, 323 and 506 of
IPC, but subsequently on the basis of a supplementary
medical examination carried out on 16.05.2024, again in
a private hospitals, the Investigating Officer had added
fresh offences under Sections 148, 149, 324, 325, 504,
and 307 of IPC against the revisionist. The learned
counsel submits that the manner in which
supplementary medical examination was conducted and
fresh charges were incorporated itself indicates that the
intention of respondent no.3 is to falsely implicate the
revisionist under false charges. It is further argued by
the learned counsel that the father of the revisionist had
made a representation to the Senior Superintendent of
Police, Dehradun, requesting that a re-medical
examination be conducted in a government hospital. He
further submits that the medical board constituted upon
such a request on 06.07.2024 opined that injury
sustained by respondent no.3 was not dangerous to life.
Section 307 of IPC was deleted by Investigating Officer
and instead of it, Section 308 of IPC came to be added
against the revisionist.
5. The learned counsel for the revisionist further
submits that after the decision to replace Section 307 of
3
IPC by Section 308 of IPC, respondent no.3 had file a
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1014 of 2024
before this Court on 19.12.2024, requesting for a further
investigation and subsequently requested for again
charging the offence under Section 307 IPC against the
revisionist, which is still pending before this Court.
6. The learned counsel vehemently contends that
respondent no3. again moved an application before the
learned Ist Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Dehradun, praying that charges be framed against the
revisionist under Section 307 of IPC; however, he failed to
disclose anything about pending application before the
High Court, which further reflects that ill intention of
respondent no.3 to falsely implicate the revisionist under
Section 307 of IPC.
7. It is further argued by the learned counsel that
the alteration of charge by Ist Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Dehradun, on the mere application of
respondent no.3 is impermissible in law, and this framing
of charge under Section 307 of IPC suffers from legal
infirmity. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment
of Apex code in the case of Dr. Nallapareddy Sridharreddy
Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in AIR
2020 12 SCC 467, which further affirms that alteration of
charges cannot be made on the application moved by the
complainant.
8. Para no.15 of the said judgment is reproduced
hereinbelow for ready reference:-
“15. In order to adjudicate upon the dispute, it is
necessary to refer to Section 216 CrPC:
“216. Court may alter charge.–(1) Any court may
alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is
pronounced.
4
(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 had 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.
17. The decision of a two-Judge Bench of
this Court in P. Kartikalakshmi v. Sri Ganesh1, dealt with a
case where during the course of a trial for an offence under
Section 376 IPC, an application under Section 216 was
filed to frame an additional charge for an offence under
Section 417 IPC. F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. while dealing
with the power of the court to alter or add any charge,
held:
“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.”
1. (2017) 3 SCC 347 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 84
5
9. The learned counsel for the revisionist also
contends that while framing charge under Section 307 of
IPC, the learned Ist Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Dehradun, did not properly consider the opinion of the
Government Medical Board, which clearly mentioned that
no grievous or life-threatening injury was found on the
head of the complainant. He further submits that, despite
such finding the learned court proceeded to frame charge
under Section 307 of IPC overlooking the expert findings. It
is further submitted by the learned counsel that when the
ingredients of Section 307 of IPC, namely – intention or
knowledge to cause death and injuries that are likely to
cause death are wholly absent, the revisionist cannot be
charged under Section 307 of IPC. It is further submitted
that even Section 308 of IPC appears inapplicable in the
present case, as no injury of deadly nature was found.
10. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the State
submits that, after detailed investigation into the matter,
including consideration of FIR, Medico Legal Case,
statements of witnesses under Section of 161, CrPC and
other relevant materials on record, a prima facie case has
been found to exist against the revisionist, therefore, the
learned Ist Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Dehradun, has rightly framed charges under the
impugned sections.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has
submitted that for attracting Section 307 of IPC, it is not
necessary that a bodily injury capable of causing death
must in fact be inflicted, it is sufficient if there exists an
intention to cause death, coupled with an covert act
committed in pursuance thereof. It is further contended
that the medical examination conducted on 06.05.2024
and again on 16.05.2024 records grievous injuries
6
sustained by the complainant, which stand corroborated
by the statements of witnesses, who have consistently
confirmed that the revisionist along with others, had
assaulted the complainant in a brutal manner. Learned
counsel for respondent no.3 submits that these facts
combined together establishes the requisite intent on the
part of the revisionist, thereby justifying the addition of
charge under Section 307 of IPC.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the both
the parties and after a bare perusal of the material
available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion
that, at the cost of repetition, it is a well settled principle of
law that, in revisional jurisdiction of High Court
interference is only required when the impugned order
suffers from perversity, illegality, or material irregularity.
Upon perusal of the FIR statements recorded under
Section 161 of CrPC, report of the Medico Legal Case and
other relevant documents a prima facie case is made out
against the revisionist under Section 307 of IPC.
Furthermore the submission of the learned counsel for the
revisionist that the charges under Section 307 of IPC were
framed only upon the complainant/respondent’s
application before the sessions court is not supported with
any material on record and is wholly misconceived.
13. Having carefully considered the case law relied
upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist, this Court
is of the view that none of the authorities lay down any
such rule, whereby the complainant is debarred from
making such an application under Section 216 of CrPC.
The ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the
revisionist only clarifies that the complainant cannot
claim, as a matter of right, to seek alternate of charges
before the Court; however, if such an application is filed by
7
the complainant, the Court can consider it on its own
merits. In fact the provision under Section 216 of Cr.P.C.,
itself makes it clear that if, during the course of trial, it
comes to the notice of the Court that there exists a
necessity for the charge to be altered on an additional
charge is to be framed, the Court is fully empowered to
exercise its discretion. Hence the mere fact that the
application has been preferred by the complainant does
not, by itself, render it non-maintainable.
14. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the opinion
of an expert, including a medical board, is not binding on
the Court, but is merely advisory in nature. In the case of
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jai Lal and others reported
in 1999 7 SCC 280, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
categorically observed that while expert opinion are
relevant and may assist the Court, the Court retains the
responsibility of framing its independent judgment based
on the evidence available on record. It has been
consistently emphasized in various judicial
pronouncements that ultimately it is the Court who are
regarded as the ‘expert of experts’; therefore, this Court
finds no illegality or perversity in the order of learned Ist
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dehradun,
warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.
15. Accordingly the criminal revision stands
dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
22.08.2025
SK
8
[ad_1]
Source link