IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellanious No.34883 of 2008 ====================================================== Asha Devi, wife of Braj Kishore Pandit, resident of village Pandirwa, Police Station Town (Hajipur), District- Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : M/s. Sudhir Singh and Raghwanand, Advocates. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayaya, Advocate. 2 12-07-2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 07.07.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 13 of 1998 by the Additional District Judge, F.T.C.-I, Vaishali at Hajipur. The order impugned indicates that the Court has altered the charges and framed charges under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was instituted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the victim was burnt to death by the petitioner and her husband. The husband has been declared to be mentally sick and in his trial the sister-in-law is the sole accused. Fourteen (14) witnesses have been examined in this case and after examination of the witnesses, the Court has altered the charge on the ground as mentioned in the last paragraph of his order which indicates that there was evidence in the case diary that there was a demand of dowry which was not fulfilled which resulted in death of the victim lady. The main objection raised on behalf of the petitioner is that though the Court has the power to alter the charges on consideration of evidence in the case diary at the pre-charge stage, the Court cannot take into account the material in the case diary to alter the charges, once the evidence in the case has commenced. The trial court could have and can alter or even frame additional charges in an appropriate case, if there is evidence to that effect that the charge has been made out against the persons facing the trial, apart from those offences under which he has been charged. Therefore, there is no doubt in the Court's mind that the lower court can frame additional charges against the accused persons, but not in the manner in which has been done. The Court finds that on perusal of the evidence that there is material to indicate that there was a demand of dowry then it would be justified for the Court to frame charges with respect to Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code. However, if there is no evidence to this effect, then, on the basis of the material in the case diary the charges cannot be altered at this stage. In the result, the order impugned dated 07.07.2008, is remitted back to the Court concerned to take a decision in view of the facts and on the basis of what has been observed above within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. In case, the Court comes to a finding that charges has been made out under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code, it goes without saying that the accused person would have the opportunity to invoke the provisions of Section 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order within a period of two weeks of its receipt before the concerned court. This application is disposed off with the aforesaid observation and direction. Md. Ibrarul/- (Sheema Ali Khan, J)