ARUNACHALAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have come forward with these revision petitions challenging the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge cum Special Judge under the SC & ST (PA) Act 1989 Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri allowing the petition filed by the prosecution under Section 216 Cr. P. C to add certain charges against the petitioners more particularly for the charge under Section 376 IPC.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the witnesses who have implicated the petitioners for the offence under Section 376 IPC have not identified these petitioners at the time of identification parade and therefore there is no question of adding the charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 376 IPC. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in respect of evidence of witnesses PW41 to PW50, PW52, PW54 and PW55, they are not identified these petitioners in the identification parade in respect of charge under Section 376 IPC. THErefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge cum special Judge under the SC & ST (PA) Act 1989 Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri allowing the petition under Section 216 Cr. P. C. is liable to be set aside.

(3.) THE Honourable Supreme Court has held in HASANBHAI valibhai QURESHI V. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS, reported in AIR 2004 (SC)2078 as follows; "there is a scope of alteration of the charge during trial on the basis of materials brought on record. Section 216 of the Code appearing in Chapter XVII clearly stipulates that any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. Whenever such alteration or addition is made the same is to be read out and informed to the accused. THErefore, if during trial the trial Court on a consideration of broad probabilities of the case based upon total effect of the evidence and documents produced is satisfied that any addition or alteration of the charge is necessary, it is free to do so, and there can be no legal bar to appropriately act as the exigencies of the case warrant or necessitate. "