Patna High Court
Dr. Chhabila Rawat vs The State Of Bihar on 19 August, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.185 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-590 Year-2018 Thana- SIWAN CITY District- Siwan
======================================================
Dr. Chhabila Rawat Son of Late Devadhari Rawat Resident of Village-
Panchmandira, P.S.- Siwan Town, District- Siwan, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rehan Ashiq Son of Pappu Miskar Resident of Village- Makhdoom Sarai,
P.S.- Siwan Town (Sarai O.P.), District- Siwan, Bihar.
3. Pappu Miskar @ Imteyaz Ahmad Son of Mumtaz Resident of Village-
Makhdoom Sarai, P.S.- Siwan Town (Sarai O.P.), District- Siwan, Bihar.
4. Bikki Kumar @ Rahul Son of Birju Chaudhary Resident of Village-
Makhdoom Sarai, P.S.- Siwan Town (Sarai O.P.), District- Siwan, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prashant Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr.Aditya Narayan Singh.1, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2-4 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-08-2025
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. The present criminal revision petition has been filed
against the order dated 04.12.2021 passed by learned Special
Judge, POCSO, Siwan in POCSO Trial No. 109 of 2019
whereby and whereunder the application dated 16.08.2019 filed
on behalf of the prosecution has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the
revisionist is the informant before the learned trial court and the
case has been registered against the opposite party nos. 2-4
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.185 of 2022 dt.19-08-2025
2/6
under Section 363A, 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 4/8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Subsequently, charge
sheet has been submitted under Section 363A, 366A, 354D,
376AB/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/6 of the
POCSO Act and cognizance has been taken under Section
363A, 366A, 354D, 376AB/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 4/6/ 8 of the POCSO Act.
4. However, the charges have been framed under
Section 363, 366A, 354D of the Indian Penal Code and Section
4/8 of the POCSO Act. Learned counsel further submits that
during investigation the age of the victim was found to be below
16 years and the application was filed on behalf of the
prosecution for alteration of the charge and for framing the
charges under Section 376(3)/34 of the Indian Penal Code
against the accused persons but the learned trial court on a
completely non est ground rejected the application filed by the
prosecution for alteration of charges holding that almost all
prosecution witnesses have been examined and record is at the
verge of disposal and considering the belated stage, the
application of the prosecution was rejected.
Learned counsel further submits that it is the settled
position of law that charges can be altered under Section 216 of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.185 of 2022 dt.19-08-2025
3/6
the Code of Criminal Procedure at any time before the judgment
is pronounced. The learned trial court has not considered this
aspect of the matter and the summarily rejected the application
for alteration of charge without adverting to the merits of the
case. Learned counsel further submits that the present matter is
covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of The State
of Bihar Vs. Md. Shahabuddin and Ors. reported in 2013 (1)
PLJR 524, paragraph no. 19, inter alia reads as under:-
"19. This Court is of the considered opinion that
while exercising revisional jurisdiction, the court
should normally refrain from reappraising or
reappreciating the evidence/materials available on
the record for coming to a different conclusion than
that of the learned trial court. Sufficiency or
otherwise of the materials for addition of charges
against the accused persons is required to be
necessarily decided first by the learned trial court
and not by the revisional court. This Court finds that
in the present case, while passing the impugned
order, the learned trial court has not at all discussed
or considered the evidence/materials available on
the record, as claimed by the prosecution, for
coming to a conclusion about the sufficiency or
otherwise of the materials for addition of charges
against the accused opposite parties. Therefore, it
may not be prudent for this Court to issue any
specific direction at this stage to the trial court for
addition of charges against the accused opposite
parties particularly in the background that the
learned trial court has not applied its judicial mind
to the facts of the case, yet, it rejected the prayer
made oh behalf of the prosecution merely on the
ground of delay in approaching the court, which has
already been held by this Court in earlier part of this
order to be not sustainable in the eye of law.
However, this Court is of the opinion that once a
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.185 of 2022 dt.19-08-2025
4/6
prayer was made on behalf of the prosecution for
addition of charges against the accused opposite
parties, the learned trial court ought to have applied
its judicial mind to the facts of the case and ought to
have considered the evidence of material witnesses,
referred to by the prosecution, for coming to a
conclusion as to whether there are sufficient
materials available on the record or not for addition
of the charges against the accused opposite parties.
But, admittedly, that has not been done in the
present case, which makes the impugned order
vulnerable."
Thus, learned counsel submits that the learned trial
court was supposed to apply its judicial mind to the facts of the
case for coming to a conclusion as to whether there was
sufficient material available on record or not for addition of
charges on the accused persons. Since learned trial court failed
to apply its judicial mind in the facts and circumstances of the
case, the impugned order is not sustainable as it is an illegal
order.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
opposite party nos. 2-4 vehemently contends that there is no
infirmity in the impugned order and the same is just and proper.
Learned counsel further submits that after submission of charge
sheet under Section 363A, 366A, 354D, 376AB/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act, cognizance was
also taken for the same section and doctor has been examined as
one of the witnesses. From the deposition of the doctor it
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.185 of 2022 dt.19-08-2025
5/6
appears that no case under Section 376(3)/34 of the Indian Penal
Code is made out as the doctor has not found any injury of
sexual assault. Learned counsel further submits that taking into
consideration these facts, the learned trial court rejected the
application and there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
6. Perused the record.
7. Having regard to the rival submission of the parties
and perusal of record, the operative part of the impugned order
shows that the learned trial court did not enter into the merits of
the case at all and did not consider what were the facts on which
the alteration of charge or addition of charge was sought on
behalf of the prosecution. The application dated 16.08.2019 has
been rejected merely on the ground that it was filed at a quite
belated stage but the same fact flies on the face of record since
the order sheet dated 22.10.2019 shows when the application
was filed, the learned trial court directed the prosecution to
adduce its evidence and also observed that the application dated
16.08.2019
would be considered after recording of the evidence.
If the learned trial court has already made such an observation,
it was not proper for it to subsequently say that the application
for alteration of charge has been filed at a belated stage.
Moreover, non-consideration of the facts and its appraisal for
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.185 of 2022 dt.19-08-2025
considering the application under Section 216 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure makes the order unsustainable and liable to
interference by this Court.
8. Accordingly, finding that the order dated
04.12.2021 passed by the learned trial court suffers from
illegality, the same is set aside and the learned trial court is
directed to pass an order afresh on the application dated
16.08.2019 filed by the prosecution.
9. Accordingly, the present criminal revision petition
stands allowed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Anuradha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 25.08.2025
Transmission Date N/A
