1/7 10-revn-259-26(j).odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 259 OF 2026 1. Rushabh Kailas Dhandare Age about 36 years, Occ. Labour 2. Jayshri Kailash Dhandare Age about 55 years, Occ. Household 3. Shubham Kailash Dhandare Age about 31 Years, Occ. Labour No. 1 to 3 R/o Zilla Parishad Quarters, Buldhana, Tq. Dist. Buldhana ...Applicants // VERSUS // State of Maharashtra through Police Station Malegaon, Tq. Malegaon, Dist. Washim … Non-Applicant Shri C.N.Wankhede, Advocate for the applicants. Shri A.M.Ghogre, APP for the non-applicant/State. CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATED : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2026. ORAL JUDGMENT Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. The present revision application challenges the order dated 30.06.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, whereby the application filed by the complainant/first informant, who is Sknair 2026:BHC-NAG:12143 2/7 10-revn-259-26(j).odt the mother of the deceased victim Vaidehi, under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking addition of charges under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, came to be allowed by the learned Trial Court. 3. Shri Wankhede, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the aforesaid application was filed by the first informant, for addition of charges under Section 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. The said application came to be allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim mechanically, without taking into consideration the evidence collected by the prosecution. It is submitted that, after completion of the investigation, the prosecution had already filed the charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306, 506 and 494 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, on application made by the first informant more serious offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code has been added mechanically without proper consideration of the evidence collected by the prosecution. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the learned trial Court has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Sknair 3/7 10-revn-259-26(j).odt Supreme Court in the case of Rajbir @ Raju and another Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2011 SC 568, while allowing the said application and directed to add Section 302 of Indian Penal Code along with other sections in the present crime. The learned counsel for the applicant further relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Rahul Gajanan Sangokar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Revision No. 154 of 2026, wherein this Court has considered the subsequent judgment pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasvinder Saini and others Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2013(7) SCC 256, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has after considering Rajbir’s case has categorically held that Section 302 of Indian Penal Code cannot be added in every dowry death case as a matter of course and that such a charge can be framed only where there is independent prima facie evidence for invoking the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is made out from the evidence collected by the prosecution. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant submits here in the present case the learned trial Court without taking into consideration the evidence collected by the prosecution has simply relied upon the postmortem report and had Sknair 4/7 10-revn-259-26(j).odt allowed the said application under Section 216 Cr.Pc. directing to add Section 302 along with Section 201 of Indian Penal Code in the charge framed against all the accused persons. The impugned order is passed without application of mind and therefore needs to be interfered by this Court under its revisional jurisdiction for correcting the error committed by the learned trial Court. The application filed by the informant under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be rejected. 5. As against this Shri Ghogre, learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposes the said application on the ground that the learned trial Court has passed detailed and reasoned order and after considering the merits of the matter and evidence collected by the prosecution, has allowed the said application. The allegation that the learned trial Court has allowed the application simply on the basis of judgment of Rajbir @ Raju and another Vs State of Haryana (supra), is misconceived as there is a specific observations as to the injuries sustained by the deceased Vaidehi in the said incident and which made out a case for addition of the charge. The subsequent judgment of Jasvinder Saini and others Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (supra) deprecates the mechanical application of the directions issued by the Sknair 5/7 10-revn-259-26(j).odt Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Rajbir @ Raju and another Vs State of Haryana (supra). However there is specific observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that if the evidence so warrants, an interference of the Court must be permissible for invocation of the charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, in the case where Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code has already made. 6. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the present case is one of such case where there is an ample evidence which shows that ante-mortem injuries sustained by the deceased before she finally died of poisoning. There are specific allegations that the applicants/accused committed cruelty upon the deceased Vaidehi for non-fulfillment of demands of dowry. Thus, the learned trial Court has relied upon the evidence collected by the prosecution, thereafter allowed the application directing the addition of the charges to be framed against the application under Sections 302 and 201 for destruction of evidence read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The impugned order is just and proper and liable to be maintained. 7. I have gone through charge-sheet and particularly the postmortem report column no.17 which shows that there are atleast 13 Sknair 6/7 10-revn-259-26(j).odt surface injuries on the body of deceased and all injuries were ante- mortem which invokes a reasonable suspicion that the victim was being subjected to cruelty and assault before her death. There are other evidence collected by the prosecution in the form of statement of the eye witnesses. The statement of the mother also shows that there were phone calls made by the deceased Vaidehi before her death, wherein she had been crying and informing about the ill-treatment meted out to her by the applicants and that she had committed a mistake by marrying the applicant no.1. Thus, the learned trial Court has applied its mind to the evidence collected by the prosecution and also the fact that a charge under Section 304-B was already being prosecuted against the present applicants. The application below Exhibit 47 was filed by the first informant under Section 216 of Code of Criminal Procedure for addition of charge under Section 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code was allowed, not only the relying upon the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajbir @ Raju and another Vs State of Haryana (supra) but also considering the subsequent judgment of the case of Jasvinder Saini and others Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (supra) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasvinder Saini and others Vs. Sknair 7/7 10-revn-259-26(j).odt State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (supra), while deprecating the mechanical application of the charges under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code in all cases of dowry death had also observed that when there is evidence where circumstances prima facie support a charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, the trial Court can, and indeed ought to frame a charge of murder punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, which would then be a main charge and not an alternative charge. 8. Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasvinder Saini and others Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (supra), I do not see any error committed by the learned trial Court in allowing the application filed by the first informant for addition of charge under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. There appears to be no patent error or illegality committed by the learned trial Court. No case is made out for interference of this Court under the revisional jurisdiction. The revision is being devoid of merit and is hereby rejected accordingly. [MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.] Sknair Signed by: Mr. S.K. NAIR Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 15/09/2026 12:08:38