HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 23548 of 2026 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Learned Counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the prayer clause during the course of the day. 2. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the applicant, Dr. Akhilesh Kumar, learned Counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present application under section 528 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 24.02.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-Ist, (Offence Against Women) Mathura in S.T. No. 41 of 2017, under sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Case Crime No. 1073 of 2015, Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura. 4. Briefly stated, Shri Krishan Sharma, the opposite party no.2, lodged an FIR bearing Case Crime No. 1073 of 2015 under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act at Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura, against the applicant and 3 others. It was alleged that his daughter Km. Kshama was married to the applicant, Arun Sharma on 19.02.2011. At the time of marriage, cash amounting Rs.3 lakhs and various articles were given. However, the in-laws demanded an additional dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs cash and a four wheeler. The daughter of opposite party no.2 was killed on 04.11.2015 at 2.00 P.M. at her matrimonial home. After a thorough investigation, the applicant was charge-sheeted under sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act. According to the autopsy report dated 05.11.2015, no ante mortem injuries were found and the cause of death could not be Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjeev Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. Arun Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) ascertained; the viscera was preserved. 5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, took cognizance on 08.02.2016. The matter was committed to the Court of Sessions and the charges were framed against the applicant on 05.07.2018 under sections 498A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act. During the trial, a total number of eight prosecution witnesses were examined. The statement of the accused/applicant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C on 09.07.2025 and the date was fixed for final arguments. The viscera of the deceased was preserved on 04.11.2015 and sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra on 17.12.2015 and was chemically examined on 22.12.2016. 6. Learned Counsel further submitted that in the meantime, taking a somersault, the ADGC (Crl.) moved an Application No. 82-Kha dated 05.12.2025 for taking viscera report on record and framing an alternative charge under Section 302 IPC. Objections were invited on the said application and the applicant filed the objection dated 13.01.2026. The application was allowed by the impugned order dated 10.02.2026, passed by learned Addl. Session Judge/Fast Track Court I (Atrocities against Women) Mathura. By said order viscera report dated 22.12.2016 was taken on record, and the matter was fixed for framing of the alternative charge under section 302 IPC. Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed alternate charge of Section 302 I.P.C. against the applicants. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 24.02.2026 is arbitrary and illegal and was passed contrary to the facts of this case. The learned Trial Court has committed gross illegality by taking the viscera report dated 22.12.2016 on record at the stage of final argument. The prosecution had already produced eight prosecution witnesses. The statement of applicant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., and the case was pending at the stage of hearing arguments. It is further submitted that the viscera report was filed with a delay of ten years and that no opportunity of cross-examination was given to the applicant. He further submits that there is no evidence on record to frame alternative charge of Section 302 I.P.C. and the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 7. Learned Counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the arguments so advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant and submitted that, after obtaining the viscera report, the prosecution moved an Application No. 82-Kha dated 05.12.2025 for taking viscera report on NA528 No. 23548 of 2026 2 record and to frame an alternative charge under Section 302 IPC. After hearing the applicant and the prosecution, the said application was allowed by order dated 10.02.2026, and 24.02.2026 was fixed for framing of alternative charge under Section 302 I.P.C. The applicant challenged the order dated 10.02.2026 by filing Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 11808 of 2026, which was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 04.05.2026. Hence, this application is liable to be dismissed. 8. As per fact of this case, the opposite party no.2, lodged an FIR bearing Case Crime No. 1073 of 2015 under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act at Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura against the applicant and 3 others. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, and the learned Magistrate took cognizance thereof. Thereafter, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions, and the charges under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act were framed against the applicant. During the trial, statements of eight prosecution witnesses were recorded and the statement of applicant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On 05.12.2025, the prosecution moved an application for taking the viscera report on record and for framing alternative charge under Section 302 I.P.C. Objections were invited and the applicant filed an objection on 13.01.2026. The Trial Court allowed the said application by order dated 10.02.2026 and fixed 24.02.2026 for framing of alternative charge under Section 302 I.P.C. The applicant challenged the order dated 10.02.2026 by filing Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 11808 of 2026, which was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 04.05.2026. 9. As per facts available on record, the learned Trial Court did not commit any illegality in framing the alternative charge against the applicant by order dated 24.02.2026. Hence, this application is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. September 11, 2026 Vijay NA528 No. 23548 of 2026 3 (Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad