Kerala High Court
Rajeendranath vs State Of Kerala on 17 December, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:98931
CRL.MC NO. 10388 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA,
1947
CRL.MC NO. 10388 OF 2025
CRIME NO.43/2009 OF Panur Police Station, Kannur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.31 OF 2013 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - III /ADDL.MACT/
RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THALASSERY
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.8:
RAJEENDRANATH
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O KRISHNAN MASTER, PUTHIYAVEETIL (H), PANNIYANNUR
AMSOM, CHAMBAD DESOM, ARAYAKOOL, KANNUR, PIN -
670694
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.K.VARGHESE
SHRI.M.T.SAMEER
SHRI.DHANESH V.MADHAVAN
SHRI.JERRY MATHEW
SMT.DEVIKA K.R.
SMT.SAWPARNIKA RAJU
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2025:KER:98931
CRL.MC NO. 10388 OF 2025
2
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP.SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:98931
CRL.MC NO. 10388 OF 2025
3
C.S.DIAS,J.
====================
Crl. M.C.No.10388 of 2025
------------------------------------ --
Dated this the 17th day of December, 2025
ORDER
The petitioner is the 8th accused in S.C.No.31/2013 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Thalassery (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), which has originated from Crime No.43/2009 registered by the Panoor Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 118, 109, 148, 341 and 302 read with Sections 149 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') and Section 27(1)(a) of the Arms Act.
2. The gravamen of the prosecution's case is that:
On 12.3.2009 at around 18.50 hours, the accused persons, in prosecution of their common intention, had hatched a conspiracy and, after forming into an unlawful assembly, committed rioting and the murder of a person named 'Vinayan'. The 8th accused (petitioner) had 2025:KER:98931 CRL.MC NO. 10388 OF 2025 4 concealed the commission of the offences committed by accused Nos. 1 to 5. Thus, the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 118 IPC.
3. The petitioner's case in the criminal miscellaneous case is that the case was initially committed to the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Thalassery, who had framed the charge (Annexure 2) as against the petitioner for allegedly committing the offence under Section 118 IPC. Subsequently, the case was made over to the Trial Court, which altered the charge (Annexure 3) by adding the offences under Sections 143, 147 and 148, 506, 302 read with Section 149 IPC as against the petitioner, in addition to Section 118 IPC. Immediately, the petitioner filed an application to alter the charge as against him. However, by Annexure 4 order, the Trial Court dismissed the said application, holding that the charge under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC as against the petitioner cannot be deleted. Simultaneously, the Trial Court again 2025:KER:98931 CRL.MC NO. 10388 OF 2025 5 altered the charge (Annexure 5) by adding Sections 120B and 341 as against the petitioner. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the Principal Sessions Judge had already framed the charge against the petitioner. Only the offence under Section 118 IPC is attracted against the petitioner. The addition of offences under Sections 120B, Section 302 r/w 149 IPC has caused grave prejudice to the petitioner. There is no material to prove that the petitioner had any role in inflicting injuries on the deceased or that he was at the scene of the occurrence. The altered charges (Annexures 3 and 5) and Annexure 4 order are patently erroneous and unsustainable in law. Hence, the Crl. M.C.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that there is no material to prove the petitioner's culpability in the crime. To attract the offence 2025:KER:98931 CRL.MC NO. 10388 OF 2025 6 under Section 149 IPC, it is imperative that the petitioner was part of the unlawful assembly. The materials on record establish that the petitioner was not at the scene of the occurrence on the uneventful date. It is without considering this crucial aspect that the Trial Court has added the offences against the petitioner, which have caused severe prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, the altered charges and the impugned order may be set aside.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposes the Crl.M.C. He submits that, under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is analogous to Section 239 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Courts have been bestowed with the power to alter or add any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. Invoking the said power and after appreciating the materials on record, the Trial Court has altered the charge. It is also well settled that there is no necessity to give specific reasons to alter a charge. It is only when an 2025:KER:98931 CRL.MC NO. 10388 OF 2025 7 accused is discharged that reasons have to be given. Nonetheless, the Trial Court, in Annexure 4 order, has given cogent reasons for altering the charge. There is illegality, irrationality or impropriety in the altered charges or the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the Crl. M.C. may be dismissed.
7. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that he is the 8th accused in the above crime.
8. The Principal Sessions Judge had framed Annexure 2 charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 118 IPC, i.e., for concealing the offences committed by accused Nos. 1 to 5. After the case was made over, the Trial Court, after re-appreciating the materials on record, altered the charge against the petitioner and, thereafter, rejected the application filed by the petitioner to drop the offence under Sections 302 r/w 149 IPC on the specific finding that the police report, statements of witnesses, the documents and material 2025:KER:98931 CRL.MC NO. 10388 OF 2025 8 objects disclose the ingredients of the offences and raise a strong suspicion that the accused has committed the offences. Hence, the Trial Court is not inclined to delete the charge under Sections 302 and 149 IPC against the petitioner. Simultaneously, the Trial Court again altered the charge as mentioned above.
9. In the above context, it is necessary to refer to Section 239 of the BNSS, which reads as follows:
"239. 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"
2025:KER:98931 CRL.MC NO. 10388 OF 2025 9
10. The above provision empowers a Court to 'alter' or 'add' to any charge framed against the accused, either upon its own motion or on an application by the parties concerned, at any time before the judgment is pronounced. It would be up to the Court to decide whether a proper charge has been framed or not, at the appropriate stage of the trial. After considering the materials on record and broad probabilities of the case, the Court must satisfy itself that the exercise of such power is necessary. The provision is incorporated with the salutary intention of ensuring a fair trial.
11. In Dr.Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy v. State of A.P. and others [(2020) 12 SCC 467], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while interpreting the analogous power under Section 216 CrPC, has held as follows:
"21. From the above line of precedents, it is clear that S.216 provides the court an exclusive and wide-ranging power to change or alter any charge. The use of the words 'at any time before judgment is pronounced' in sub-section (1) empowers the court to exercise its powers of altering or adding charges even after the completion of evidence, arguments and reserving of the judgment. The alteration or addition of a charge may be done if, in the 2025:KER:98931 CRL.MC NO. 10388 OF 2025 10 opinion of the court, there was an omission in the framing of charge or if upon prima facie examination of the material brought on record, it leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The test to be adopted by the court while deciding upon an addition or alteration of a charge is that the material brought on record needs to have a direct link or nexus with the ingredients of the alleged offence. Addition of a charge merely commences the trial for the additional charges, whereupon, based on the evidence, it is to be determined whether the accused may be convicted for the additional charges. The court must exercise its powers under S.216 judiciously and ensure that no prejudice is caused to the accused and that he is allowed to have a fair trial. The only constraint on the court's power is the prejudice likely to be caused to the accused by the addition or alteration of charges. Sub-section (4) accordingly prescribes the approach to be adopted by the courts where prejudice may be caused."
12. In Anant Prakash Sinha v. State of Haryana and Another [(2016) 6 SCC 105], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarised the principles to be followed while exercising the power under Section 216 CrPC as under:
"18. From the aforesaid, it is graphic that the court can change or alter the charge if there is defect or something is left out. The test is, it must be founded on the material available on record. It can be on the basis of the complaint or the FIR or accompanying documents or the material brought on record during the course of trial. It can also be done at any time before pronouncement of judgment. It is not necessary to advert to each and every circumstance. Suffice it to say, if the court has not framed a charge despite the material on record, it has the jurisdiction to add a charge. Similarly, it has the authority to alter the charge. The principle that has to be kept in mind is that the charge so framed by the Magistrate is in accord with the materials produced before him or if subsequent evidence comes on record. It is not to be understood that unless evidence has been let in, charges already framed cannot be altered, for that is not the purport of S.216 CrPC".
2025:KER:98931 CRL.MC NO. 10388 OF 2025 11
13. In a recent decision in Director of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora [2025 KHC Online 6344], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after a threadbare analysis of the law and the earlier precedents on the point, has reiterated the above legal principles.
14. The exposition of law on the above provision, therefore, explicitly confers power on a Court to alter a charge, i.e., to vary an existing charge and make a different charge.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal [2000 KHC 154] has observed that, even in a trial before a Court of Sessions, the Judge is required to record reasons only if he decides to discharge the accused. However, if he is to frame the charge, he may do so without recording his reasons.
16. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge, after considering the materials on record, has exercised her power to alter the charge as against the petitioner, 2025:KER:98931 CRL.MC NO. 10388 OF 2025 12 that too by giving specific reasons for the same.
17. After carefully analysing the facts, the materials on record, the exposition of the law on the point and the elaborate reasons given in the impugned order, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the altered charges and Annexure 4 order warranting interference by this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS. The Crl. M.C. is devoid of any merit and consequently dismissed. Nevertheless, it is clarified that this Court has not considered the merits of the case. The Trial Court is directed to consider and dispose of S.C.No.31/2013, in accordance with law, untrammelled by any observation made in this order.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE MMG/dkr 2025:KER:98931 CRL.MC NO. 10388 OF 2025 13 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 10388 OF 2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN SC NO.31/2013 ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF SESSIONS, THALASSERY Annexure 2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COURT CHARGE IN SC NO 31/2013 ON THE FILES OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY DATED 22.07.2023 Annexure 3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ALTERED COURT CHARGE IN SC NO 31/2013 ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF SESSIONS, THALASSERY DATED 09.08.2024 Annexure 4 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MP NO.4157/2025 IN SC NO. 31/2023 DATED 23.09.2025 Annexure 5 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ALTERED CHARGE IN SC NO. 31/2013 ON THE FILES OF COURT OF SESSIONS, THALASSERY DATED 23.09.2025 Annexure 6 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE Annexure 7 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENTS RECORDED U/S 161 CR.PC OF CW18 & CW19