Jharkhand HC Upholds Addition of Murder Charge in Poisoning Death, Rejects Section 216 Challenge

Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava dismisses a revision against a trial court order adding Sections 328 and 302/34 IPC to a Section 306 case, citing the court's independent satisfaction.

The Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi has dismissed a criminal revision filed by four accused persons challenging a trial court order that added charges under Sections 328 and 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code to a case originally framed under Section 306 IPC. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, hearing Criminal Revision No. 1050 of 2022, held that the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa had exercised its own independent satisfaction under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while allowing the prosecution's application, and that the mere filing of an application by the prosecution did not vitiate the trial court's order. The case arises from the death of Savita Devi in 2012, allegedly after her in-laws forcibly administered poison mixed in sattu. The order was reserved on 10 June 2026 and pronounced on 24 June 2026.

A poisoning case that began with a wrong charge

Savita Devi was married in 1997 to Subhash Pandey. According to the prosecution case, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her in-laws over accusations of theft. On 16 May 2012, at about 3 pm, the accused persons allegedly dragged her by the hair and forcibly administered poisonous substance in sattu. Her father, the informant, learnt of the incident through a phone call from his granddaughter and rushed to the matrimonial home. Savita Devi was taken to Sadar Hospital, Garhwa, but died there.

The FIR, based on the informant's fardbeyan, was registered for offences under Sections 328 and 302 read with 34 of the IPC. Despite this, the Investigating Officer, after completing investigation, submitted a charge-sheet only under Section 306 IPC. Cognizance was taken on that basis and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions as S.T. No. 158 of 2017. Charge under Section 306 IPC was framed against the petitioners in July 2017.

During trial, evidence changed the picture. The doctor, the Investigating Officer, and PW-4 Divya Kumari, the deceased's daughter and the sole eyewitness to the occurrence, testified that the deceased was forcibly administered poison. The viscera report also corroborated poisoning as the cause of death. On this basis, the prosecution moved an application under Section 216 CrPC seeking addition of charges under Sections 328 and 302/34 IPC.

The trial court's order and the revision

The Additional Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa, after hearing both sides, allowed the prosecution's application by order dated 10 August 2022 and fixed 12 September 2022 for reading the additional charge to the accused. The four petitioners — Nagendra Pandey, Madhu Devi, Satyendra Pandey and Sarita Devi, all residents of Rapura, Harigawan in Garhwa district — challenged this order before the High Court.

Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, appearing for the petitioners, argued that under Section 216 CrPC neither the prosecution nor the accused has a vested right to seek alteration or addition of charge; the power lies exclusively with the court. He submitted that the trial court committed a serious illegality by allowing the prosecution's application, and relied on P. Kartikalakshmi v. Sri Ganesh & Anr., (2017) 3 SCC 347, where the Supreme Court held that Section 216 CrPC is an enabling provision for the court to exercise on its own, and that no party has a right to seek such addition by filing an application.

Mr. Gautam Rakesh, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, countered that the FIR itself was registered under Sections 328 and 302/34 IPC, and that the charge-sheet under Section 306 IPC did not reflect the actual case. He argued that the application was a mere formal trigger, and the trial court had elaborately considered the evidence on its own wisdom before deciding to add the charges. He submitted that the trial court's satisfaction could not be vitiated simply because the prosecution had filed an application, since Section 216 CrPC does not require any such application and the power vests suo motu in the court.

Why the court's own satisfaction, not the application, was decisive

Justice Srivastava went through the impugned order in light of both submissions. He noted that although the FIR was lodged under Sections 328 and 302/34 IPC with specific allegations of forcible poisoning, the sole eyewitness, PW-4 Divya Kumari, had been examined during trial, and the FSL report corroborated the presence of a highly poisonous substance in the deceased's viscera.

The Court explained the scope of Section 216 CrPC in some detail. The provision empowers a trial court to alter or add charges at any time before judgment is pronounced, and once altered, the charge must be read out and explained to the accused. The phrase “add to any charge” includes addition of an entirely new charge, and the power can be exercised based on material brought on record during trial. Sub-section 3 allows the trial to continue as if the added or altered charge were the original charge, provided there is no prejudice to either the accused or the prosecutor. Sub-section 4 permits the court to order a new trial or adjournment where such prejudice would otherwise result.

The judge held that there is no fetter on the court's power simply because the addition or alteration was sought by a party through an application. He observed that in the instant case, the trial court had allowed the application “having considered the facts, circumstances and materials available on record.” Since the prosecution's case had, from the very inception, been that the deceased died from poison administered in sattu, the addition of Sections 328 and 302/34 IPC could not come as a surprise to the defence.

Distinguishing the Supreme Court's ruling in Kartikalakshmi

The Court addressed the petitioners' reliance on P. Kartikalakshmi directly. It noted that in that case, the prosecution's application for addition of charge had been rejected by the trial court, and it was the prosecution which carried the matter in revision up to the Supreme Court, where it was reiterated that no party has a vested right to invoke Section 216 CrPC. Justice Srivastava distinguished the facts: here, the trial court had allowed rather than rejected the application, doing so after weighing the evidence that had emerged during trial, including the eyewitness testimony and the viscera report.

The Court held that the principle in Kartikalakshmi — that no party has a right to demand addition of charge — does not translate into a bar on the court exercising its own power once it independently forms the necessity to alter or add a charge, regardless of who first flagged that necessity through an application.

Order

Justice Srivastava recorded that he found no reason to interfere with the impugned order and no merit in the revision. The Criminal Revision No. 1050 of 2022 was accordingly dismissed. Any pending interlocutory applications stood disposed of, and the Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the concerned trial court for information and necessary action.