Court Retains Exclusive Power Under Section 216 CrPC to Alter Charges Based on Trial Evidence

The daughter of the informant, Savita Devi, died on May 16, 2012. It was alleged that the petitioners (in-laws) forcibly administered a poisonous substance in her food (Sattu).

Although the FIR was registered under Sections 328 and 302/34 of the IPC, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet only under Section 306 IPC (Abetment of suicide), and charges were initially framed accordingly in July 2017.

During the trial, evidence from the Doctor, the Investigating Officer, the sole eyewitness P.W.-4 (daughter of the deceased), and a positive viscera report indicated a case of poisoning.

Consequently, the prosecution filed an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. to add charges for murder and administration of poison. The trial court allowed this application on August 10, 2022.

The petitioners challenged this order, arguing that the court cannot add charges based on a party's application as a matter of right.

1. Whether the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 216 Cr.P.C. by allowing a prosecution application for the addition of charges.

2. Whether the addition of charges under Sections 328 and 302/34 IPC was legally sustainable based on the trial evidence.

Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which empowers a court to alter or add any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.

P. Kartikalakshmi vs. Sri Ganesh & Anr. (2017) 3 SCC 347, which establishes that while no party has a "vested right" to seek alteration of charges via application, the court possesses the exclusive power to do so suo moto if it becomes aware of the necessity through its own wisdom or when the matter is brought to its notice.

The Court reasoned that while the power under Section 216 Cr.P.C. is exclusive to the judiciary and cannot be claimed as a right by the prosecution, the mere filing of an application does not vitiate the court’s decision if the court independently determines that adding a charge is necessary.

In this case, the trial court exercised its "own wisdom" by evaluating the specific evidence presented during trial—specifically the eyewitness testimony of P.W.-4 and the corroborative forensic viscera report.

The High Court noted that adding these charges did not cause unfair surprise or prejudice to the defense because the original FIR contained these specific allegations of poisoning.

The Court distinguished the present case from P. Kartikalakshmi, noting that if a trial court chooses to exercise its enabling power based on substantive evidence on record, it does not constitute a legal infirmity.

The High Court dismissed the revision petition and directed the trial court to proceed with the trial after reading out and explaining the additional charges to the accused petitioners.