JUDGMENT S.G. Shah, J. 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Mangukiya with Mr. Tejas Barot, learned Advocate for the applicants, whereas, learned A.P.P. Ms. Jhaveri for the respondent-State. The petitioners herein are original accused in Sessions Case No. 144 of 2012 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge at Godhra. A F.I.R. has been lodged against them by mother of the victim before the Santrampur Police Station on 8-5-2012 contending that respondents are ill-treating, abusing and dealing with the cruelty upon her daughter Sonal, who was married with petitioner No. 1. Rest of the petitioners are family members of the petitioner No. 1, and thereby, relatives and in-laws of the victim. It is further stated in the complaint that petitioner No. 1 was used to drunk and drag away the victim Sonal from his house and when he was caught for the mis-deeds and criminal activities, they alleged that it was because of the victim Sonal. It is also stated in the complaint that petitioners were demanding dowry in the form of separate house and Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash, for which, victim Sonal has given an application before the Madhavpura Police Station. Thereby for incident dated 13-4-2012, it is stated in the complaint that she has received an intimation regarding death of her daughter Sonal at the house of petitioner No. 1 and when they rush to there, she found that her daughter Sonal was burnt but her hairs were not burnt and it seems that she ablazed by the respondent, whereby, they killed her daughter Sonal by brassing her by fire. Therefore, initially, Investigating Agency has registered a complaint under Secs. 498A, 306 and 114 of I.P.C. It seems that on the same date before the victim succumbed to the burn injuries, her statement was recorded by Investigating Agency, wherein, she has stated that she burned in an accident and she has no complaint against petitioner No. 1 i.e. her husband and her mother-in-law i.e. petitioner No. 2. However, after investigation, Police has found that it was not the case of an accident, and therefore, filed a charge-sheet which is ultimately committed to the Sessions Court and numbered as Sessions Case No. 144 of 2012. It seems that Investigating Agency has, before framing of charge included the charges under Secs. 304B as well as 498B in addition to Secs. 498A and 306 read with Sec. 114 of I.P.C. 2. It seems that Investigating Agency has, before framing of charge included the charges under Secs. 304B as well as 498B in addition to Secs. 498A and 306 read with Sec. 114 of I.P.C. 2. On 21-9-2012, the Sessions Court has framed the charge against the petitioners at Exh. 3 under Secs. 304B and 498A read with Sec. 114 of I.P.C. and under Secs. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The M.L.C. certificate issued by General Hospital, Godhra and postmortem note confirms that there was 88% burn injuries over the body of the victim, and therefore, relying upon case papers and such medical evidence, learned A.P.P. has by Exh. 28 requested the Court to include the charge under Sec. 302 also. Thus, such application is to be treated for modification of charge for which there is specific provision under Code of Criminal Procedure. While allowing such application, the Sessions Court has observed that it has to consider the papers which are relied upon by the prosecution and considering the statement of deceased and medical certificate and post-mortem note, charge under Sec. 302 of I.P.C. can be added and thereby the application was allowed. It is further directed by the Court that both the parties are at liberty to examine or cross-examine the witnesses who are already examined till now. Therefore, it becomes clear that some witnesses are already examined till then. 4. Therefore, considering the provisions of Sec. 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure though addition or alteration of the charge is permissible at any stage, charge can be altered or added only if Court is satisfied on consideration of broad probability of the case based upon total effect of the evidence and documents produced on record and not only because of the prayer or request by any litigant. If we peruse the provisions regarding framing of charge under Part (A) of Chapter XVII, it becomes clear that this Chapter provides complete procedure for addition or alteration of charge, and therefore, without following such provision, charge cannot be altered or added. 5. The respondent has submitted that in fact the decision is taken by considering the available material on record by the Sessions Court, and therefore, there is no scope of allowing the revision as prayed for. 5. The respondent has submitted that in fact the decision is taken by considering the available material on record by the Sessions Court, and therefore, there is no scope of allowing the revision as prayed for. In support of his submission, learned Advocate for the respondents has relied upon deposition of complainant, mother of the victim at Exh. 18. However, it would not be appropriate to discuss and comment on evidence which is recorded by the trial Court for final determination of the case since it would otherwise prejudice the final judgment. 6. As against that petitioner is relying upon several statements of the witnesses including mother of the victim whose deposition is recorded, wherein, before the Investigating Officer, mother has categorically stated that she has apprehension that her daughter was killed by her in-laws. Therefore, petitioner has submitted that there cannot be charges or conviction based upon apprehension only. 7. Respondents are also relying upon the case between Kantilal Chandulal Mehta v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1969 (3) SCC 166 , wherein, though Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Criminal Procedure Code gives ample powers to the Court to alter or amend the charge either by the trial Court or even by the appellate Court, provided that the accused has not to face such charge for new offence or is not prejudiced either by keeping him in dark about that charge or without giving him full opportunity of meeting it or putting forward his defence for the charge finally preferred against him. However, in the given case, the consideration of additional charge is with reference to Sec. 406 of I.P.C. because of misappropriation when there was misappropriation of money as well as goods, and therefore, when entire transaction was indivisible and when initially charge for misappropriation of money alone was framed, charge for misappropriation of goods was added. Therefore, only because of the observations recorded hereinabove, it cannot be said that in every case, charge can be altered even without sufficient evidence is available. Otherwise, what is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is the outcome of the provisions, for which there cannot be any dispute, but the provision does not confirm that charge can be added even in absence of evidence. 8. Otherwise, what is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is the outcome of the provisions, for which there cannot be any dispute, but the provision does not confirm that charge can be added even in absence of evidence. 8. Respondents are also relying upon the case between Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2004 (5) SCC 347 : (2004 (2) GLR 1634 (SC)), wherein, Kantilal (supra) has been followed, wherein, it is made clear that if during the trial, the trial Court on a consideration of broad probabilities of the case based upon total effect of the evidence and documents produced is satisfied that any addition or alteration of the charge is necessary, it is free to do so. Thereby, it is made clear that charge can be added based upon the entire effect of evidence and not on other grounds. 9. Whereas, applicants are relying upon the case between Mavji Meghaji v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1999 (0) GLHEL-HC 207608, wherein, it is made clear that merely because some statement is made by the complainant in her examination-in-chief, charge cannot be altered. 10. Though trial Court has not referred and not stated in the impugned judgment; it seems that prosecution and the trial Court has deemed fit themselves to such exercise pursuant to decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Rajbir v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2011 SC 568 : 2010 (15) SCC 116 , wherein, a direction was issued to all trial Courts in India to ordinarily add charges under Sec. 302 with the charge of Sec. 304B so that death sentence can be imposed in such heinous crime against women. 11. However, decision in Rajbir (supra) has been clarified by the Supreme Court in the case of Jasvinder Saini v. State (Government of N.C.T. of Delhi), reported in 2013 (7) SCC 256 : 2013 AIR SCW 6027 confirming that the direction issued in Rajbir (supra) was not meant to be followed mechanically and without due regard to the nature of evidence available in the case. It is further stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajbir case (supra) mean to say that in a case where a charge alleging dowry death is framed, a charge under Sec. 302 of I.P.C. can also be framed if the evidence otherwise frames and no other meaning can be deduced. It is further stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajbir case (supra) mean to say that in a case where a charge alleging dowry death is framed, a charge under Sec. 302 of I.P.C. can also be framed if the evidence otherwise frames and no other meaning can be deduced. In Paragraphs 16 and 17 (SCC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that, however, such decision would not prevent the trial Court from re-examining the question of framing of charge under Sec. 302 of I.P.C. against the appellant - accused and passing an appropriate order if upon a prima facie appraisal of the evidence adduced before it, the trial Court comes to a conclusion that there is any room for doing so. However, it shall remain uninfluenced by the observations made by the High Court on merits of the case. 12. It would also be appropriate to recollect the decision of Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision between C.B.I. v. Keshub Mahindra, reported in AIR 2011 SC 2037 . Though it speaks about factual details of that case, the ultimate result explains the provision regarding framing of charge at different levels. In view of above facts and circumstances, there is substance in the present Revision Application and the same is hereby allowed as prayed for. Thereby, the Order dated 31-1-2013 below Exh. 28 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra is hereby quashed and set aside. However, it would be open for the prosecution or the Court to take necessary steps and necessary decision pursuant to the provisions of Chapter XVII of the Code of Criminal Procedure in accordance with law if evidence permits to exercise such jurisdiction.