The Allahabad High Court dismissed an application under Section 528 BNSS challenging a trial court order that added Section 307 IPC to existing charges through a second application under Section 216 CrPC. The Court held that Section 216 CrPC empowers courts to alter charges at any stage before judgment, and a prior rejection does not bar a subsequent application if prima facie evidence supports the new charge. Medical evidence confirming a firearm injury and the victim's statement provided sufficient basis for adding attempt to murder charges.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Raghvendra Pratap Singh, sought quashing of an order dated 04.06.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Basti in Session Trial No. 478 of 2022 (State vs. Sukhpal Singh and Others) arising from Case Crime No. 96 of 2021 at Police Station Gaur, District Basti. The impugned order allowed an application under Section 216 CrPC filed by the informant (Opposite Party No. 2) to alter charges and add Section 307 IPC against the accused persons including the applicant.
Key Facts
- 16.05.2021: Alleged incident occurred at approximately 7 pm at Sikari Chauraha when the informant (Bablu) went to buy vegetables
- 19.05.2021: FIR lodged as Case Crime No. 96 of 2021 under Sections 147, 148, 504, 506, 323, 307, 188 IPC, Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, and Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005
- The FIR alleged political rivalry; accused abused and threatened informant; later near Ram Naresh's house, accused assaulted informant with lathi-danda; applicant Raghvendra fired a gunshot at informant; Manoj Sharma who intervened was also assaulted
- 02.08.2021: Charge-sheet submitted; cognizance taken; five accused including applicant summoned under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC (Section 307 omitted)
- 08.08.2022: First application under Section 216 CrPC filed by Opposite Party No. 2 for adding Section 307 IPC
- 08.09.2022: First application rejected by trial court as premature
- 22.09.2022: Charges framed against accused; trial commenced
- During trial: Statements of P.W.1 (Bablu), P.W.3 (Manoj), and P.W.2 (doctor who treated injured) recorded
- 16.03.2023: Second application under Section 216 CrPC filed by Opposite Party No. 2 with same prayer
- 04.06.2026: Trial court allowed second application, adding Section 307 IPC by altering charges
Procedural History
- 19.05.2021: FIR registered (Case Crime No. 96 of 2021, PS Gaur, Basti)
- 02.08.2021: Cognizance taken; accused summoned under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC
- 08.08.2022: First Section 216 CrPC application filed
- 08.09.2022: First application rejected as premature
- 22.09.2022: Charges framed; trial commenced
- 16.03.2023: Second Section 216 CrPC application filed
- 04.06.2026: Impugned order passed allowing second application, adding Section 307 IPC
- 11.08.2026: Present application under Section 528 BNSS reserved for judgment
- 26.10.2026: Judgment delivered dismissing the application
Relief Sought
The applicant sought quashing of the impugned order dated 04.06.2026 on grounds that it was illegal, arbitrary, passed without application of mind, and that the second application was not maintainable after the first rejection with no new facts or material evidence.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether a second application under Section 216 CrPC for alteration of charges is maintainable after an earlier application with the same prayer has been rejected; (2) Whether the evidence on record - specifically the medical evidence of a firearm injury and the victim's statement - constitutes sufficient prima facie material to support addition of Section 307 IPC; (3) Whether the High Court should interfere under Section 528 BNSS with the trial court's exercise of power under Section 216 CrPC.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order was illegal, arbitrary, and without application of mind. The first application under Section 216 CrPC with the identical prayer had been rejected on 08.09.2022. The second application was allowed despite no new facts or material evidence coming on record. Even the existing material before the trial court did not corroborate any offence under Section 307 IPC against the applicant. The principle of res judicata or at least judicial discipline should bar a second application on the same grounds.
For the Respondent / State
Learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 vehemently opposed the application and supported the impugned order. They drew the Court's attention to the statement of P.W.2 (the doctor who examined P.W.1/informant Bablu), which clearly stated that injury no. 1 was caused by a firearm. The medical description recorded: "Entry wound 1.0 X 0.9 cm with irregular and inverted margin with bleeding over lateral aspect of left thigh which is 24 cm above the left knee joint. Light blackening with through and through." They relied on the provisions of Section 216 CrPC which confer ample power to alter or add charges at any time before judgment.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined Section 216 CrPC which provides that any court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. The provision explicitly states that every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused, and if proceeding immediately is not likely to prejudice the accused or prosecutor, the court may proceed as if the altered charge had been the original charge.
"It is evident from the above-mentioned section that the same gives ample powers to the Court to alter or amend the charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. The question, which needs for consideration in the present case, is whether there is evidence to support the charge under Section 307 IPC."
The Court then evaluated the evidence. P.W.2 (the doctor) specifically stated that injury no. 1 of the injured/informant P.W.1 (Bablu) was caused by a firearm. Moreover, P.W.1 had already stated before the trial court that he had received a firearm injury. The Court concluded:
"Thus, there is prima facie evidence available to support the charge, which is the requirement under Section 216 CrPC for addition/alteration of the charge."
On the maintainability of the second application, the Court held:
"The core issue in the instant matter is that whether the second application under section 216 CrPC is maintainable or not once the first one has already been rejected at the initial stage? The same shall be dependent upon the stage since the power vests with the learned court concerned while considering the prayer under section 216 CrPC is available before pronouncement of judgement of concerned trial."
The Court reasoned that the power under Section 216 CrPC is available at any stage before judgment. The rejection of an earlier application at a preliminary stage (before charges were framed and evidence recorded) does not exhaust the court's power. Once evidence emerges during trial - here, the medical evidence and victim's deposition - the court can revisit the question of charge alteration. The impugned order dated 04.06.2026 did not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference under Section 528 BNSS.
The Verdict
The application under Section 528 BNSS was dismissed. The Court upheld the trial court's order dated 04.06.2026 adding Section 307 IPC to the charges against the applicant and other accused persons. No costs were awarded. The trial in Session Trial No. 478 of 2022 will proceed with the altered charges including Section 307 IPC.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Second Charge Alteration Application Not Barred by Prior Rejection
- A prior rejection of a Section 216 CrPC application at a preliminary stage does not bar a subsequent application if new evidence emerges during trial
- The power under Section 216 CrPC is continuing and available at any stage before judgment
- Practitioners should not treat an early rejection as final; the court can revisit charge alteration when evidence crystallizes
Prima Facie Standard for Adding Section 307 IPC
- Medical evidence confirming firearm injury (entry wound with blackening, through-and-through trajectory) coupled with victim's statement constitutes sufficient prima facie evidence
- The threshold for charge alteration under Section 216 CrPC is lower than conviction standard - only prima facie material needed
- Defense counsel must be prepared to challenge medical evidence at the charge alteration stage itself
Limited Scope of Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC Review
- High Courts will not interfere with trial court's Section 216 CrPC orders absent illegality or perversity
- The revisional jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate; mere disagreement with the trial court's assessment of prima facie evidence is insufficient
- Applications under Section 528 BNSS challenging charge alteration face a high threshold
