ORDER : Heard Md. Sajid Yunus, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Nehru Mahto, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. In this application, petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 18.02.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Chaibasa whereby and whereunder charge has been framed against the petitioners u/s 304(B)/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and in the alternative u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Sonua P.S. Case No. 5 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 64 of 2016. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in a mechanical manner charge has also framed u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned trial court without discussing any evidence which would suggest an offence having been committed u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that although in the case of Rajbir @ Raju and Another versus State of Haryana reported in (2010) 15 SCC 116 it was mandatory for the learned trial court to have framed charge in the alternative u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code but the said principle was diluted in the case of Jasvinder Saini and Others versus State (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2013) 7 SCC 256 and therefore the learned trial court cannot frame charge in a mechanical manner. 4. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 5. The orders impugned seem to have been passed on the basis of the order passed in the case of Rajbir @ Raju and Another versus State of Haryana (Supra). However, in the subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court it seems that it has been categorically stated that the additional charge can be framed provided there are sufficient materials evident on record to frame such charge. In explaining the case of Rajbir @ Raju and Another versus State of Haryana, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasvinder Saini and Others versus State (Government of NCT of Delhi) has held as follows:- “13. A reading of the order which the trial court subsequently passed on 23-2-2011 directing addition of a charge under Section 302 IPC makes it abundantly clear that the addition was not based on any error or omission whether inadvertent or otherwise in the matter of framing charges against the accused. A reading of the order which the trial court subsequently passed on 23-2-2011 directing addition of a charge under Section 302 IPC makes it abundantly clear that the addition was not based on any error or omission whether inadvertent or otherwise in the matter of framing charges against the accused. Even the respondents did not plead that the omission of a charge under Section 302 IPC was on account of any inadvertent or other error or omission on the part of the trial court. The order passed by the trial court, on the contrary directed addition of the charge under Section 302 IPC entirely in obedience to the direction issued by this Court in Rajbir case. Such being the position when the order passed by the trial court was challenged before the High Court the only question that fell for determination was whether the addition of a charge under Section 302 IPC was justified on the basis of the direction issued by this Court in Rajbir case. The High Court has no doubt adverted to that aspect and found itself to be duty-bound to comply with the direction in the same measure as the trial court. Having said so, it has gone a step further to suggest that the autopsy surgeon’s report was prima facie evidence to show that the offence was homicidal in nature. The High Court has by doing so provided an additional reason to justify the framing of a charge under Section 302 IPC.” “14. Be that as it may, the common thread running through both the orders is that this Court had in Rajbir case directed the addition of a charge under Section 302 IPC to every case in which the accused are charged with Section 304-B. That was not, in our opinion, the true purport of the order passed by this Court. The direction was not meant to be followed mechanically and without due regard to the nature of the evidence available in the case. All that this Court meant to say was that in a case where a charge alleging dowry death is framed, a charge under Section 302 can also be framed if the evidence otherwise permits. No other meaning could be deduced from the order of this Court.” 6. All that this Court meant to say was that in a case where a charge alleging dowry death is framed, a charge under Section 302 can also be framed if the evidence otherwise permits. No other meaning could be deduced from the order of this Court.” 6. Thus viewed in the context of the judgment quoted above the impugned order dated 18.02.2017 clearly reveals that the charge has been framed u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code in a mechanical manner and without there being any evidence on record as none of witnesses have been examined prior to passing of the order dated 18.02.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Chaibasa with respect to framing additional charge u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code which is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 7. This application is allowed. 8. However, the learned trial court is at liberty to frame additional charges if sufficient evidence surfaces in course of trial as has been indicated in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasvinder Saini and Others versus State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (Supra). 9. This application stands disposed of.