Court affirms trial court's decision to add charges under IPC Sections 328 and 302/34 against accused in Savita Devi's death case.
Ranchi, June 24, 2026 – In a significant development, the Jharkhand High Court, presided over by Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, upheld the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa, to add charges under Sections 328 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the accused in the case concerning the death of Savita Devi. The court dismissed the criminal revision filed by Nagendra Pandey and others, challenging the trial court’s decision.
The case originated from an FIR registered under Sections 328 and 302/34 IPC, following allegations that Savita Devi, the informant's daughter, was forcibly administered poison by her in-laws, leading to her death. Initially, the investigation led to charges being framed under Section 306 IPC. However, as the trial progressed, critical evidence, including eyewitness testimony and a forensic report, corroborated the allegations of forcible poisoning.
The prosecution subsequently filed an application under Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to add charges under Sections 328 and 302/34 IPC. The trial court, after thorough consideration, accepted the application, resulting in the present revision petition by the accused.
Justice Srivastava, in his order, emphasized the exclusive power of the court under Section 216 Cr.P.C. to alter or add charges at any time before the judgment is pronounced, provided it does not prejudice the accused or prosecution. He referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in P. Kartikalakshmi v. Sri Ganesh, underscoring that neither the prosecution nor the defense has a vested right to demand alteration or addition of charges. The court must independently assess the necessity based on the evidence presented.
The defense argued that the trial court committed a grave error by allowing the prosecution's application, asserting that the power to alter charges should not be influenced by applications from either party. However, the court maintained that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction, given the substantial evidence supporting the prosecution's case from the outset.
The High Court’s decision reinforces the judiciary's authority to adapt charges to align with the evolving understanding of the case facts, ensuring that justice is served without procedural prejudice. The ruling is expected to impact similar cases where the dynamics of evidence necessitate reevaluation of charges during trial proceedings.
Bottom line:-
Section 216 of Cr.P.C. empowers the trial court to alter or add charges at any time before the judgment is pronounced, provided it does not cause prejudice to the accused or the prosecution.
Statutory provision(s): Section 216 of Cr.P.C., Sections 328, 302/34, and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Nagendra Pandey v. State of Jharkhand, (Jharkhand) : Law Finder Doc id # 2933122
