Oral Dying Declaration During Trial Justifies Alteration of Charge from Abetment of Suicide to Murder: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Name: Gurtej Singh @ Gurtej Singh Brar v. State of Punjab and Another

Date of Judgment: 21 May 2026

Citation: CRR-1047-2026

Bench: Justice Manisha Batra

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a criminal court can alter a charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C. at any stage before pronouncement of judgment if evidence emerging during trial discloses commission of a graver offence. The Court upheld the alteration of charge from Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) to Section 302 IPC (murder) based on consistent testimony regarding an oral dying declaration attributing a direct role to the accused in forcibly administering poison to the deceased.

Summary: The revision petition challenged an order of the Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby charges against the petitioner were altered from Sections 306 and 201 IPC to Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The case arose from the death of the petitioner’s wife, who allegedly consumed poison and later died.

Initially, the FIR was registered under Section 302 IPC on allegations that the petitioner and his mother forcibly administered poison to the deceased. However, during investigation, the police deleted the offence under Section 302 IPC and filed the challan under Sections 306 and 201 IPC. The petitioner was subsequently granted bail.

During trial, the prosecution sought alteration of charge after PW-3 and PW-4 testified that the deceased had made an oral dying declaration while hospitalized. According to these witnesses, the deceased stated that the petitioner forcibly administered poisonous spray into her mouth while his mother restrained her. Relying on this evidence, the trial court altered the charge to Section 302 IPC.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the alteration was unsustainable because the police investigation had already concluded that no case under Section 302 IPC was made out. Reliance was placed on the enquiry conducted by the DSP, statements of independent witnesses, call detail records, and the statement of the deceased’s minor son, all of which allegedly suggested that the petitioner was not present at the scene. It was further argued that the medical evidence did not support homicidal administration of poison and that the alleged oral dying declaration lacked credibility.

The State and the complainant contended that the trial court was empowered under Section 216 Cr.P.C. to alter charges on the basis of evidence that emerged during trial. They argued that the oral dying declaration constituted substantive evidence sufficient to raise a strong suspicion regarding the commission of murder.

The High Court agreed with the State and observed that the scope of Section 216 Cr.P.C. is wide. The Court reiterated that the object of the provision is to ensure that charges remain consistent with the evidence available on record and that a court is not bound by the conclusions of the investigating agency. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Anant Prakash Sinha, the Court held that charges may be altered not only on the basis of material accompanying the FIR but also on evidence emerging during trial.

The Court found that the statements of PW-3 and PW-4 specifically attributed a direct role to the petitioner in forcibly administering poison to the deceased. Such testimony constituted substantive material sufficient to form a prima facie opinion that offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC may have been committed. Questions relating to the reliability of the oral dying declaration, contradictions with medical evidence, or the correctness of the investigation were held to be matters for final appreciation during trial and not at the stage of alteration of charge.

The High Court also rejected the argument that the prosecution lacked locus to seek alteration of charge. It held that although neither the prosecution nor the complainant possesses a vested right to demand alteration of charge, the court remains competent to independently examine material placed before it and alter charges whenever the evidence justifies such action.

Decision: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the trial court’s order altering the charge from Section 306 IPC to Section 302 IPC. The Court held that the evidence emerging during trial, particularly the oral dying declaration testified to by prosecution witnesses, provided sufficient material to justify framing a charge for murder. It further clarified that the observations made in the revision proceedings were confined to the issue of alteration of charge and would not influence the final adjudication of the criminal trial.