JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner, by way of this petition, is challenging the order passed by Learned Additional Session Judge No.1, Behror(Alwar), Rajasthan u/s 216 Cr.P.C for alter the charge u/s 302 IPC instead of charge framed against the accused u/s 306 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant, in his original FIR, has levelled the allegation against the respondent-Chandra Das of having murdered the deceased – Rohitash Das. Learned counsel also submits that State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, has given a finding that the samples of Rohitash Das gave positive test for the presence of Aluminum Phosphide, which is a poison. After the charges were framed, an application was moved u/s 216 Cr.P.C. for framing charges u/s 302 IPC instead of u/s 306 IPC. The Trial Court rejected the said application essentially on the ground that there is admitted disputes between the accused - Chandra Das and the petitioner with regard to “Pagdi Rasam” of the deceased Rohitash Das. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that from the statements, which have come on record, it is apparent that the accused had murdered deceased – Rohitash Das. 3. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the accused submits that the provisions of Section 216 Cr.P.C. could not have been invoked as the original charge, which was framed against the accused, was u/s 306 IPC and after complete evidence has been recorded, the application has been moved. Although, there is no link available from the statements or any iota of evidence to prove that the deceased was murdered. 4. Learned counsel relies on the judgment in the case of “Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Karimullah Osan Khan” reported in 2014 (3) SCC(Cri.) 437, wherein it has been held that the court can exercise the power of addition or modification of the charges u/s 216 Cr.P.C, only when there exists some material before the court, which has some connection or link with the charges sought to be amended, added or modified. 5. Karimullah Osan Khan” reported in 2014 (3) SCC(Cri.) 437, wherein it has been held that the court can exercise the power of addition or modification of the charges u/s 216 Cr.P.C, only when there exists some material before the court, which has some connection or link with the charges sought to be amended, added or modified. 5. In the aforesaid background, if the present case is examined, this court finds that the learned Judge while rejecting the application u/s 216 Cr.P.C for framing the charges u/s 302 IPC has not discussed the statements, which have already been recorded while it is an exclusive domain of the court to alter or added the charge u/s 216 Cr.P.C. If the charge is alter or added after the commencement of trial, the accused is allowed to recall witnesses for the purpose of defence. 6. This court has gone through the statements, which have been recorded and it appears that there is a mention of there being some grudge between the deceased - Rohitash Das and Chandra Das. This court would not have any power to make any observation over it and it is left open for the concerned trial court to take a decision. However, it is expected that trial court shall thoroughly consider each and every statements, which have come on record and if it is found that a case u/s 302 is made out, then it may alter and amend the charge and give opportunity to accused in terms of Section 217 Cr.P.C., otherwise, he would be free to proceed and complete the trial and pass a judgment in accordance with law. 7. Leaving it open for the petitioner to advance all the arguments in this regard before the trial court, this criminal misc.petition is accordingly disposed of.8. All pending application also stand disposed of.