Judgment MOHD. YAMIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS is the revision against the order dated 7-12-1994 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratnagarh by which he added charge under Section 457, IPC against the petitioners. ( 2 ) FACTS in brief are that the complainant Ramchandra Nai lodged a report at Police Station Sri Doongararh on 19-7-1984 to the effect that on 13-7-1984 when he was out and his wife and children were at his house, in the night, the petitioners in an intoxicated condition entered into his house. His wife was sleeping outside the Jhoopa in the court-yard. Prabhuram committed rape. She raised hue and cry but nobody came to rescue her at the dead hour of the night. Ramchandras father had also gone out but when Sunderram his uncle went to look after his family and sleep at the house of Ramchandra, found the petitioners there and warned them and the petitioners ran away. A case under Section 376 and 457, IPC was registered and on investigation final report was submitted. A protest petition was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate who passed order on 11-10-1984 taking cognizance against all the three petitioners for the offences under Section 376/34, IPC. Thereafter the case was committed to the Sessions Judge. He framed charge under Section 376, IPC against all the petitioners. The trial proceeded and as many as 12 witnesses of the prosecution were examined. Prosecution completed its evidence on 11-1-1993 and the case was fixed for statements of accused-persons on 24-1-1995. By the impugned order dated 7-12-1994 the learned Addl. Sessions Judge added charge under Section 457, IPC against all the three petitioners. ( 3 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that in Mangilal v. State 1990 RLR 494 such a practice has been deprecated because charge was added at the fag end of the trial. He has also submitted that the charge under Section 457, IPC is not made out. He has, of course, agreed that a charge under Section 447, IPC may be made out but it is a lesser offence and should not have been added at this belated stage. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has tried to support the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. He has, of course, agreed that a charge under Section 447, IPC may be made out but it is a lesser offence and should not have been added at this belated stage. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has tried to support the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to Section 216 of the Cr. P. C. any Court may alter or add any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel that Court at this stage could not have added charge is devoid of any force. The practice may be deprecated but when a case is made out from the evidence, court may add any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. The allegations are that the petitioners entered into the house by scaling the boundary wall which was about 4 ft high as is clear from the site plan Ex. P/2. It was the dead hour of the night when the petitioners entered into the house of Ramchandra where Jhoopa is situated. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no evidence that they entered into the Jhoopa and the place which is the courtyard does not come within the definition of house and therefore charge under Section 457, IPC is not made out. I will not like to discuss the evidence which has come before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by the prosecution, lest it may prejudice the case of either party but I can very well say that the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is not tenable at this stage. Charge can be framed on the basis of suspicion if there is prima facie evidence to that effect. The house of complainant is surrounded by boundary wall of about 4 ft high which was scaled by the petitioners. They first took liquor outside the house before entering into it. ( 6 ) LOOKING to the facts and circumstances of the case when the offence is said to have been committed within the boundary wall of the house outside Jhoopa. I am of the view that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not committed any illegality in framing the charge against the petitioners. There is no force in this revision and it is hereby dismissed. I am of the view that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not committed any illegality in framing the charge against the petitioners. There is no force in this revision and it is hereby dismissed. The record of the courts below be transmitted immediately so that the trial may be finished early in this old case. Petition dismissed.