Case Name: Dr. Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Date of Judgment: JANUARY 21, 2020
Citation: 2020 INSC 68; Criminal Appeal No. 1934 of 2019 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 3884 of 2019)
Bench: Hon’ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy.
Held: The Supreme Court held that Section 216 CrPC empowers a court to alter or add charges at any time before pronouncement of judgment, even after evidence and arguments are concluded. The only constraint is to ensure that no prejudice is caused to the accused. In this case, witness statements and the additional charge-sheet of 2013 provided a clear link with the ingredients of offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, thereby justifying the High Court’s direction to frame additional charges.
Summary: The appellant, a doctor, married the complainant’s daughter in 2003. In 2011, an FIR alleged harassment and dowry demands. A charge-sheet in 2012 framed charges under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. Later, an additional charge-sheet in 2013 alleged that the appellant had demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- to secure a doctor’s job for his wife in the UK, attracting offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. Due to oversight, charges were not framed on this basis. When the public prosecutor sought alteration in 2017, the Trial Court rejected it, holding the ingredients were not made out. The High Court reversed, directing addition of the new charges. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s reasoning, relying on precedents (Onkar Nath Mishra, Anant Prakash Sinha, CBI v. Karimullah Osan Khan, Jasvinder Saini). The Court emphasized that at the charge-framing stage, even strong suspicion is sufficient, and evaluation of veracity is for trial.
Decision: Appeal dismissed. High Court order affirmed. Trial Court directed to proceed with charges under Sections 498A, 406, and 420 IPC along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.