The trial court under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. possesses an exclusive and wide-ranging power to alter or add to any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. This power is not dependent on an application by a party but exists to remedy omissions or when evidence on record warrants alteration. However, the exercise of this power is constrained by the requirement that the material on record must have a direct link or nexus with the ingredients of the alleged offence, and no prejudice must be caused to the accused, allowing for a fair trial, including the recall of witnesses under Section 217 Cr.P.C..
To attract Section 370 IPC (Trafficking of persons), it must be prima facie shown that the accused recruited, transported, harboured, transferred, or received a person for the purpose of exploitation by means of threats, force, fraud, abduction, abuse of power, or inducement. Mere hiring of a worker from outside the local area, even for subsequent sexual exploitation inside the home, does not automatically constitute trafficking under Section 370 IPC absent evidence of the specific acts of recruitment or conveyance for exploitation.
In the present case, although the petitioner alleged sexual exploitation, the material on record did not establish a prima facie case that the accused recruited or trafficked the petitioner as per Section 370 IPC. The petitioner was brought by a third party (Fagu), and salary was deposited into the father's account. The subsequent sexual exploitation by the husband was distinct from the act of trafficking. Consequently, the application for addition of charge was rightly dismissed.
