Sarthak Chhillar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 2663 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Sarthak Chhillar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 22 August, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                          Judgment reserved on:-14.08.2025
                          Judgment delivered on:-22.08.2025

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
            Criminal Revision No. 307 of 2025
                        22nd August, 2025

Sarthak Chhillar                                 .........Revisionist

                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others                 ........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Vikash Uniyal, B.H. for the State.
Ms. Snigdha Tiwari, Advocate through video conferencing and Mr.
Yogesh Kumar, Advocate i/b Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, Advocate for
respondent no.3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

By means of the instant criminal revision, the revisionist is seeking setting aside of the impugned judgment and order dated 09.05.2025 passed in Sessions Trial No.138 of 2024, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Sarthak Chillar, pending in the court of learned Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 505, 506 and 307 of IPC, whereby the charges were framed against the revisionist for the aforementioned sections.

2. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.96 of 2024 was lodged by respondent no.3 on 07.05.2024 under Sections 147, 323 and 506 of IPC against the revisionist, alleging therein that on 03.05.2024, the revisionist along with certain other persons, had assaulted him, as a result of which he sustained injuries. Upon completion of the investigation,

a charge sheet was filed before the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Dehradun u/s 147, 323, 506, 148, 149, 324, 325, 504 and 308 IPC, who, considering that the offence under Section 308 of IPC was exclusively triable by the sessions court, committed the matter to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, for trial. Subsequently, an application being Paper No.6-A was moved by respondent no.3 seeking addition of charge under Section 307 of IPC against the revisionist. The revisionist had also filed an objection to application Paper No.6A being Paper No.8-A before the learned Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun, objecting to the addition of Section 307 of IPC against him. The revisionist also filed an application being Paper No.9-A before the learned Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun, praying for his discharge under Section 308 of IPC and for sending the case back to learned Judicial Magistrate for trial. All the aforementioned applications came to be decided by the learned Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun, vide the impugned judgment and order dated 09.05.2025. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun, added a charge under Section 307 of IPC while rejecting the application Paper No.9A and framed the charges under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 504, 506 and 307 of IPC against the revisionist. Hence, the present criminal revision.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 03.05.2024; however, the FIR came to be lodged at a later date on 07.05.2024, after an inordinate delay of four days. The learned counsel submits that before

lodging of FIR respondent no.3 had procured a medical examination from a private hospital. The learned counsel further submits that respondent no.3 deliberately avoided examination at a government hospital, which clearly casts a doubt on the genuineness of the respondent no.3's story and shows that it is concocted.

4. The learned counsel for the revisionist also contends that the FIR was initially registered under less severe provisions, namely, Sections 147, 323 and 506 of IPC, but subsequently on the basis of a supplementary medical examination carried out on 16.05.2024, again in a private hospitals, the Investigating Officer had added fresh offences under Sections 148, 149, 324, 325, 504, and 307 of IPC against the revisionist. The learned counsel submits that the manner in which supplementary medical examination was conducted and fresh charges were incorporated itself indicates that the intention of respondent no.3 is to falsely implicate the revisionist under false charges. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the father of the revisionist had made a representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun, requesting that a re-medical examination be conducted in a government hospital. He further submits that the medical board constituted upon such a request on 06.07.2024 opined that injury sustained by respondent no.3 was not dangerous to life. Section 307 of IPC was deleted by Investigating Officer and instead of it, Section 308 of IPC came to be added against the revisionist.

5. The learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that after the decision to replace Section 307 of

IPC by Section 308 of IPC, respondent no.3 had file a Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1014 of 2024 before this Court on 19.12.2024, requesting for a further investigation and subsequently requested for again charging the offence under Section 307 IPC against the revisionist, which is still pending before this Court.

6. The learned counsel vehemently contends that respondent no3. again moved an application before the learned Ist Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dehradun, praying that charges be framed against the revisionist under Section 307 of IPC; however, he failed to disclose anything about pending application before the High Court, which further reflects that ill intention of respondent no.3 to falsely implicate the revisionist under Section 307 of IPC.

7. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the alteration of charge by Ist Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dehradun, on the mere application of respondent no.3 is impermissible in law, and this framing of charge under Section 307 of IPC suffers from legal infirmity. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of Apex code in the case of Dr. Nallapareddy Sridharreddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in AIR 2020 12 SCC 467, which further affirms that alteration of charges cannot be made on the application moved by the complainant.

8. Para no.15 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

"15. In order to adjudicate upon the dispute, it is necessary to refer to Section 216 CrPC:

"216. Court may alter charge.--(1) Any court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.

(2) Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused.

(3) If the alteration or addition to a charge is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is not likely, in the opinion of the court, to prejudice the accused in his defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case, the court may, in its discretion, after such alteration or addition has been made, proceed with the trial as if the altered or added charge had been the original charge. (4) If the alteration or addition is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is likely, in the opinion of the court, to prejudice the accused or the prosecutor as aforesaid, the court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary. (5) If the offence stated in the altered or added charge is one for the prosecution of which previous sanction is necessary, the case shall not be proceeded with until such sanction is obtained, unless sanction has been already obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as those on which the altered or added charge is founded.

17. The decision of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in P. Kartikalakshmi v. Sri Ganesh1, dealt with a case where during the course of a trial for an offence under Section 376 IPC, an application under Section 216 was filed to frame an additional charge for an offence under Section 417 IPC. F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. while dealing with the power of the court to alter or add any charge, held:

"6. ... Section 216 CrPC empowers the court to alter or add any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. It is now well settled that the power vested in the court is exclusive to the court and there is no right in any party to seek for such addition or alteration by filing any application as a matter of right. It may be that if there was an omission in the framing of the charge and if it comes to the knowledge of the court trying the offence, the power is always vested in the court, as provided under Section 216 CrPC to either alter or add the charge and that such power is available with the court at any time before the judgment is pronounced. It is an enabling provision for the court to exercise its power under certain contingencies which comes to its notice or brought to its notice. In such a situation, if it comes to the knowledge of the court that a necessity has arisen for the charge to be altered or added, it may do so on its own and no order need to be passed for that purpose. After such alteration or addition when the final decision is rendered, it will be open for the parties to work out their remedies in accordance with law."

1. (2017) 3 SCC 347 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 84

9. The learned counsel for the revisionist also contends that while framing charge under Section 307 of IPC, the learned Ist Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dehradun, did not properly consider the opinion of the Government Medical Board, which clearly mentioned that no grievous or life-threatening injury was found on the head of the complainant. He further submits that, despite such finding the learned court proceeded to frame charge under Section 307 of IPC overlooking the expert findings. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that when the ingredients of Section 307 of IPC, namely - intention or knowledge to cause death and injuries that are likely to cause death are wholly absent, the revisionist cannot be charged under Section 307 of IPC. It is further submitted that even Section 308 of IPC appears inapplicable in the present case, as no injury of deadly nature was found.

10. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the State submits that, after detailed investigation into the matter, including consideration of FIR, Medico Legal Case, statements of witnesses under Section of 161, CrPC and other relevant materials on record, a prima facie case has been found to exist against the revisionist, therefore, the learned Ist Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dehradun, has rightly framed charges under the impugned sections.

11. The learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has submitted that for attracting Section 307 of IPC, it is not necessary that a bodily injury capable of causing death must in fact be inflicted, it is sufficient if there exists an intention to cause death, coupled with an covert act committed in pursuance thereof. It is further contended that the medical examination conducted on 06.05.2024 and again on 16.05.2024 records grievous injuries

sustained by the complainant, which stand corroborated by the statements of witnesses, who have consistently confirmed that the revisionist along with others, had assaulted the complainant in a brutal manner. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that these facts combined together establishes the requisite intent on the part of the revisionist, thereby justifying the addition of charge under Section 307 of IPC.

12. Having heard the learned counsel for the both the parties and after a bare perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that, at the cost of repetition, it is a well settled principle of law that, in revisional jurisdiction of High Court interference is only required when the impugned order suffers from perversity, illegality, or material irregularity. Upon perusal of the FIR statements recorded under Section 161 of CrPC, report of the Medico Legal Case and other relevant documents a prima facie case is made out against the revisionist under Section 307 of IPC. Furthermore the submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist that the charges under Section 307 of IPC were framed only upon the complainant/respondent's application before the sessions court is not supported with any material on record and is wholly misconceived.

13. Having carefully considered the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist, this Court is of the view that none of the authorities lay down any such rule, whereby the complainant is debarred from making such an application under Section 216 of CrPC. The ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist only clarifies that the complainant cannot claim, as a matter of right, to seek alternate of charges before the Court; however, if such an application is filed by

the complainant, the Court can consider it on its own merits. In fact the provision under Section 216 of Cr.P.C., itself makes it clear that if, during the course of trial, it comes to the notice of the Court that there exists a necessity for the charge to be altered on an additional charge is to be framed, the Court is fully empowered to exercise its discretion. Hence the mere fact that the application has been preferred by the complainant does not, by itself, render it non-maintainable.

14. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the opinion of an expert, including a medical board, is not binding on the Court, but is merely advisory in nature. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jai Lal and others reported in 1999 7 SCC 280, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that while expert opinion are relevant and may assist the Court, the Court retains the responsibility of framing its independent judgment based on the evidence available on record. It has been consistently emphasized in various judicial pronouncements that ultimately it is the Court who are regarded as the 'expert of experts'; therefore, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the order of learned Ist Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dehradun, warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.

15. Accordingly the criminal revision stands dismissed.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 22.08.2025 SK