JUDGMENT : 1. No one turns up on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Perusal of the record reveals that this revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.05.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Latehar in Sessions Trial No.33 of 2004 whereby and whereunder, the learned trial court has been pleased to invoke the power conferred under Section 216 Cr.P.C. and added the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code as an alternative charge. 3. Since, this is a year old case and the trial court record has been called for and thus practically there is a stay of the proceedings in the trial court by default, in absence of the case record, in this backdrop as no one has turned up on behalf of the petitioner, this Court thinks it proper to dispose of this criminal revision upon perusal of the record. 4. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that on 11.05.2006, the accused was called in attendance and the trial was fixed for hearing of the argument of the defence and during course of argument, the learned court below found that there must be an alternative charge of 302 of Indian Penal Code and by invoking the power conferred under Section 216 of Cr.P.C., it added the charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code as an alternative charge and read over the charge to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As the new charge was added, so the learned trial court by the impugned order also directed the defence to furnish the list of witnesses they want to cross-examine, out of the witnesses earlier examined in this case. 5. Perusal of the record further reveals that it has been averred in the revision petition that the order passed by the trial court is contrary to law and the learned trial court ought to have recorded reasons for such addition of charge. Hence, the prayer has been made to set aside the impugned order. 6. Perusal of the record reveals that originally the charge framed against the petitioner was under Section 304B/34 and under Section 201/34 of Indian Penal Code. 7. Hence, the prayer has been made to set aside the impugned order. 6. Perusal of the record reveals that originally the charge framed against the petitioner was under Section 304B/34 and under Section 201/34 of Indian Penal Code. 7. The brief facts of the case is that the dead body of the deceased was found between the cluster of bushes and it was appearing that the deceased was strangulated and the dead body was thrown in the cluster of bushes. 8. During the course of trial altogether 17 witnesses have been examined. P.W.1- Fulwasi Tiwari-who is the mother of the deceased has stated that five days after the marriage of the deceased, the husband of the deceased went to Australia and the deceased used to live with her father-in-law and mother-in-law and the deceased solemnized love marriage with the petitioner. P.W.1 further stated that the petitioner used to keep the deceased at Ranchi but the parents of the petitioner were not happy with the deceased. The petitioner took away Rs.3,50,000/- from the deceased for investing in his business. It is then stated that the petitioner was supposed to marry the deceased on 09.06.2003 but he demanded Rs.2,00,000/- dowry from the P.W.1 and the petitioner forcibly took the deceased who was pregnant. It is further stated that the petitioner used to torture the deceased and on 25.06.2003, P.W.1 came to know that the deceased is missing from her in-law’s house and subsequently, her dead body was found under the Chandwa Police Station and the dead body was identified by the petitioner. It was claimed by P.W.1 inter alia that the petitioner misappropriated the money of the deceased and committed her murder. 9. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in (2004) 5 SCC 347 , paragraph no.10 of which is as under:- “10. ……. If during trial the trial court [upon] 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 ……..”. 10. ……. If during trial the trial court [upon] 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 ……..”. 10. In view of the fact that where a charge only under Section 304B is framed, it becomes difficult to convict the accused even if the material on record clearly indicates commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder. In order to obviate this difficulty, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajbir vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2011 SC 568 gave the following directions :- “ ….. all trial courts in India to ordinarily add section 302 to the charge of Section 304B, so that death sentences can be imposed to in such heinous and barbaric crimes against women …...” 11. Considering the settled principle of law and the facts of this case, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality in the order dated 11.05.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Latehar in Sessions Trial No.33 of 2004 in framing an alternative charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 12. Accordingly, this criminal revision being without any merit is dismissed. 13. Let the Lower Court Records along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned court below forthwith.