Facts of the case

The case arose during the course of a criminal trial where charges had been framed against the accused at the outset of proceedings. As the trial progressed and evidence came on record, it became apparent to the court that the charges as originally framed did not fully or accurately capture the nature of the offence disclosed by the evidence. The prosecution moved an application before the trial court seeking alteration of the existing charge, or alternatively, the addition of a new charge that more precisely reflected the material that had emerged during the trial.

The accused objected to this application. The contention was that allowing the charge to be altered at an advanced stage of the trial, after substantial evidence had already been led, would cause serious prejudice. Witnesses had been examined and cross-examined with reference to the original charge. Altering the charge at this stage would, the accused argued, fundamentally change the nature of what they were being tried for and leave them unable to mount an effective defence against the new or altered accusation.

The trial court allowed the application and proceeded to alter the charge. The accused challenged this order, which ultimately led to the higher court examining the true scope and limits of the power under Section 225 of the BNSS, with particular attention to the procedural safeguards that must accompany any such alteration.

Issue before the court

1. Whether the trial court had the power under Section 225 BNSS to alter or add to a charge at an advanced stage of the trial, and if so, under what conditions and with what safeguards that power must be exercised.

2. Whether the alteration of a charge mid-trial causes prejudice to the accused, and if so, what remedies the law provides to cure that prejudice. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the accused has a right to recall and re-examine witnesses after a charge is altered, and whether the failure to afford this opportunity vitiates the trial.

3. Can the procedural power to alter charges be exercised in a manner that compromises the accused's constitutional right to know the precise accusation they face and to have a meaningful opportunity to defend against it?

Arguments before the Court

Accused : Challenging the alteration of Charge

The accused argued that Section 225 BNSS, while conferring a wide power to alter charges, is not an unlimited or unconditional power. The accused had built their entire defence around the original charge. Witnesses had been cross-examined with that charge in mind. Altering the charge at a late stage without affording the accused a full opportunity to recall witnesses, lead fresh evidence, and restructure their defence amounted to a serious violation of the right to a fair trial. The accused relied on the principle that every person charged with a criminal offence must know precisely what accusation they are facing and must be given an adequate and real opportunity to meet it. An alteration of charge that denies this opportunity cannot be sustained even if the court has the formal power to make the alteration.

Prosecution or State

The prosecution argued that Section 225 BNSS expressly empowers the court to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. This is a deliberate legislative choice ensuring that the accused is tried for the offence that the evidence actually discloses, rather than being acquitted on a technicality of charge framing. The prosecution contended that the power to alter charges serves the interests of justice and that any prejudice to the accused can be adequately addressed by allowing them to recall witnesses and lead additional evidence in relation to the altered charge. Provided these safeguards are followed, an alteration of charge does not vitiate the trial or violate the accused's rights.

Read Also: M/s Ascent Ventures & Ors vs State of Maharashtra 2026

Analysis of the court

The court began by examining the text and structure of Section 225 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The provision confers an express power on the court to alter or add to any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. This is a wide power. The court noted that the legislature has deliberately kept this power broad because the primary objective of a criminal trial is to try an accused for the offence they have actually committed as disclosed by the evidence, not merely for the offence mentioned in the original charge sheet or framing order.

However, the court was firm that this wide power comes with mandatory procedural obligations that cannot be skipped or treated as optional. When a charge is altered or a new charge is added, Section 225 BNSS requires that the altered or new charge must be read and explained to the accused. The accused must then be asked whether they wish to recall any witnesses for further examination or cross-examination in light of the altered charge. This is not a discretionary courtesy. It is a statutory right of the accused that the court must actively secure.

The court emphasised that the right to recall witnesses after alteration of charge is an integral part of the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. When a charge is altered, the nature of the accusation changes. The accused may need to cross-examine prosecution witnesses differently, lead additional defence evidence, or recall witnesses to elicit facts that were not relevant under the original charge but have become critical under the altered one. Denying this opportunity is not a procedural irregularity that can be brushed aside as curable. It strikes at the root of the trial and can render the entire proceeding unfair.

The court also addressed the timing of the alteration. While Section 225 BNSS permits alteration at any time before judgment, the court cautioned that this does not mean the power can be exercised casually or at the very last minute without good reason. The later in the trial the alteration is made, the greater the potential for prejudice to the accused, and the more carefully the court must ensure that all safeguards are complied with. The court's power under Section 225 must always be exercised in a manner consistent with the overriding obligation to ensure a fair trial.

Finally, the court held that the mere fact that a charge has been altered does not by itself vitiate the trial. What matters is whether the accused was given a proper opportunity to meet the altered charge. If the mandatory safeguards of reading the altered charge, explaining it to the accused, and affording them the right to recall witnesses were followed, the alteration is valid and the trial can proceed. If those safeguards were not followed, the trial from the point of alteration onward is compromised and the defect must be cured before the trial can continue to judgment.

Concluding remark

Section 225 BNSS reflects a mature understanding of how criminal trials actually work in practice. Evidence does not always fit neatly within the four corners of a charge framed at the beginning of a case. Courts need the flexibility to align the charge with what the evidence discloses, and the law sensibly provides for this. But flexibility without safeguards is not justice. It is that balance between the court's power and the accused's rights that this ruling restates and enforces.

For students, this ruling offers a ready-made framework for answering any question on alteration of charges under BNSS. Remember the three steps: the court has the power, the power requires mandatory safeguards, and the safeguards are constitutionally rooted in Article 21. Any answer that captures all three elements will be comprehensive and will stand out in any exam or moot court setting.

Frequently asked questions

1. What does Section 225 of the BNSS deal with?

Section 225 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with the power of a court to alter or add to any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. It is the successor provision to Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and governs the procedure that must be followed when a charge is altered during the course of a criminal trial.

2. When can a court alter a charge under Section 225 BNSS?

A court can alter or add to a charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. There is no fixed stage in the trial at which this power must be exercised. However, the court must ensure that the alteration is warranted by the evidence on record and that all mandatory safeguards are complied with before proceeding further.

3. What safeguards must be followed when a charge is altered under Section 225 BNSS?

Two mandatory safeguards apply. First, the altered or new charge must be read out and explained to the accused. Second, the accused must be asked whether they wish to recall any prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination or to lead additional defence evidence in relation to the altered charge. Both steps are statutory obligations and cannot be skipped.
 

If you're preparing for the Civil Judge exam, choosing the right online judiciary coaching for civil judge can make a significant difference. With expert faculty, structured courses, live classes, and regular mock tests, online coaching helps you stay consistent and exam-ready from the comfort of your home. It also provides updated study material, case law analysis, and personalized guidance to boost your preparation and confidence.