Crl.Revision 1821 of 2001
Decided On, 17 July 2001
At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.C. GUPTA It is well settled that in revision order of summoning can be quashed only on limited grounds namely : (1) where the allegations made in the complaint and the evidence adduced in support thereof even if taken at their face value, do not constitute any criminal offence;
(2) where the allegations made in the complaint and evidence adduced in support thereof are patently so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent and reasonable person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on evidence or materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible;
and (4) where the complaint suffers from any fundamental legal defect, such as want of sanction or absence of a complaint by a person legally . Supreme Court of India
Smt. Nagawwa vs Veeranna Shivallngappa Konjalgi on 23 April, 1976
Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1947, 1976 SCR 123 in the following cases an order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed or set aside:
(1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does net disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused;
(2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and .
(4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like. Supreme Court of India
A.K. Subbaiah & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 28 August, 1987 when the issue of process is challenged in the revision petition before the High Court what the High Court is expected to see is as to whether the complaint and the papers accompanying the complaint prima facie indicate that an offence is made out. If so, the Court below was right in issuing process against the accused persons and such proceedings can not be quashed; if the complaint and the papers accompanying the complaint, in the opinion of the High Court are such which do not prima facie disclose an offence then it will be open to the High Court to entertain the revision and quash the proceedings. Supreme Court of India
U.P. Pollution Control Board vs M/S Mohan Meakins Ltd. And Others on 27 March, 2000 under Section 204 aforesaid, a Magistrate has to form an opinion that there was sufficient ground for proceeding and, if an opinion had to be formed judicially, the only mode of doing so is to find out express reasons for coming to the conclusions. In the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has neither specified any reasons nor has he even formed an opinion much less about there being sufficient ground for not proceeding with the case."
There is no such legal requirement imposed on a magistrate for passing detailed order while issuing summons vide Kanti Bhadra Shah vs. State of West Bengal [2000(1) SCC 722]. The following passage will be apposite in this context:
"If there is no legal requirement that the trial court should write an order showing the reasons for framing a charge, why should the already burdened trial courts be further burdened with such an extra work. The time has reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the court procedures and to chalk out measures to avert all roadblocks causing avoidable delays. If a Magistrate is to write detailed orders at different stages, the snail-paced progress of proceedings in trial courts would further be slowed down. We are coming across interlocutory orders of Magistrates and Sessions Judges running into several pages. We can appreciate if such a detailed order has been passed for culminating the proceedings before them. But it is quite unnecessary to write detailed orders at other stages, such as issuing process, remanding the accused to custody, framing of charges, passing over to next stages in the trial. Supreme Court of India
Martin F. D' Souza vs Mohd. Ishfaq on 17 February, 2009
Supreme court , directed that whenever a complaint is received against a doctor or hospital by the Consumer Fora (whether District, State or National) or by the Criminal Court then before issuing notice to the doctor or hospital against whom the complaint was made the Consumer Forum or Criminal Court should first refer the matter to a competent doctor or committee of doctors, specialized in the field relating to which the medical negligence is attributed, and only after that doctor or committee reports that there is a prima facie case of medical negligence should notice be then issued to the concerned doctor/hospital. This is necessary to avoid harassment to doctors who may not be ultimately found to be negligent.
SECTION 209 Cr.PC In Sanjay Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 514, this court while dealing with the competence of the Magistrate to discharge an accused, in a case like the instant one at hand, held :
“….it is not open to the committal Court to launch on a process of satisfying itself that a prima facie case has been made out on the merits. The jurisdiction once vested in him under the earlier Code but has been eliminated now under the present Code. Therefore, to hold that he can go into the merits even for a prima facie satisfaction is to frustrate the Parliament's purpose in re-moulding Section 207-A (old Code) into its present non-discretionary shape. Expedition was intended by this change and this will be defeated successfully if interpretatively we hold that a dress rehearsal of a trial before the Magistrate is in order. In our view, the narrow inspection hole through which the committing Magistrate has to look at the case limits him merely to ascertain whether the case, as disclosed by the police report, appears to the Magistrate to show an offence triable solely by the Court of Session. Assuming the facts to be correct as stated in the police report, …..the Magistrate has simply to commit for trial before the Court of Session. If, by error, a wrong section of the Penal Code is quoted, he may look into that aspect.
If made-up facts unsupported by any material are reported by the police and a sessions offence is made to appear, it is perfectly open to the Sessions Court under Section 227 CrPC to discharge the accused. This provision takes care of the alleged grievance of the accused.” Supreme Court of India
Ajay Kumar Parmar vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 September, 2012 when an offence is cognizable by the Sessions court, the Magistrate cannot probe into the matter and discharge the accused. It is not permissible for him to do so, even after considering the evidence on record, as he has no jurisdiction to probe or look into the matter at all. His concern should be to see what provisions of the Penal statute have been mentioned and in case an offence triable by the Sessions Court has been mentioned, he must commit the case to the Sessions Court and do nothing else. it is not permissible for the Judicial to take into consideration the evidence in defence produced by the accused as it has consistently been held by this Court that at the time of framing the charge, the only documents which are required to be considered are the documents submitted by the investigating agency along with the charge-sheet. Any document which the accused want to rely upon cannot be read as evidence. If such evidence is to be considered, there would be a mini trial at the stage of framing of charge. That would defeat the object of the Code. The provision about hearing the submissions of the accused as postulated by Section 227 means hearing the submissions of the accused on the record of the case as filed by the prosecution and documents submitted therewith and nothing more. Even if, in a rare case it is permissible to consider the defence evidence, if such material convincingly establishes that the whole prosecution version is totally absurd, preposterous or concocted. The scheme of the Code, particularly, the provisions of Sections 207 to 209 Cr.P.C., mandate the Magistrate to commit the case to the Court of Sessions, when the charge-sheet is filed. A conjoint reading of these provisions make it crystal clear that the committal of a case exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, in a case instituted by the police is mandatory.
The scheme of the Code simply provides that the Magistrate can determine, whether the facts stated in the report make out an offence triable exclusively, by the Court of Sessions. Once he reaches the conclusion that the facts alleged in the report, make out an offence triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, he must commit the case to the Sessions Court.
The Magistrate, in exercise of its power under Section 190Cr.P.C., can refuse to take cognizance if the material on record warrants so. The Magistrate must, in such a case, be satisfied that the complaint, case diary, statements of the witnesses recorded underSections 161and164Cr.P.C., if any, do not make out any offence. At this stage, the Magistrate performs a judicial function. However, he cannot appreciate the evidence on record and reach a conclusion as to which evidence is acceptable, or can be relied upon. Thus, at this stage appreciation of evidence is impermissible. The Magistrate is not competent to weigh the evidence and the balance of probability in the case.
The court should not pass an order of acquittal by resorting to a course of not taking cognizance, where prima facie case is made out by the Investigating Agency. More so, it is the duty of the court to safeguard the right and interests of the victim, who does not participate in discharge proceedings. At the stage of application of Section 227, the court has to shift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Thus, appreciation of evidence at this stage, is not permissible. (Vide: P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala & Anr., AIR 2010 SC 663; and R.S. Mishra v. State of Orissa & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 1103).
CHARGE :- They intended to provide the accused the notice of the matter of offence of which he is charged in the court law and on which he would be subject to a trial. Purpose of the charge is to show precisely and concisely the matter of offence by which he is charged and to give notice to the accused as to what prosecution intends to prove against him at the trial. In a summons case its not necessary to make a formal charge (Section 251) . Supreme Court of India
Mohan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 26 August, 2011 The purpose of framing a charge is to give intimation to the accused of clear, unambiguous and precise notice of the nature of accusation that the accused is called upon to meet in the course of a trial. in the case of Dalbir Singh v. State of U.P., reported in (2004) 5 SCC 334, a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that in view of Section 464 Cr.P.C.
it is possible for the appellate or revisional court to convict the accused for an offence for which no charge was framed unless the court is of the opinion that the failure of justice will occasion in the process. The learned Judges further explained that in order to judge whether there is a failure of justice the Court has to examine whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which he is being convicted and whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him clearly and whether he got a fair chance to defend himself. If we follow these tests, we have no hesitation that in the instant case the accused had clear notice of what was alleged against him and he had adequate opportunity of defending himself against what was alleged against him.
In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Paras Nath Singhreported in (2009) 6 SCC 372 this Court, setting out Section 464 of Cr.P.C., further held that whether there is failure of justice or not has to be proved by the accused.
Supreme Court of India
Anna Reddy Sambasiva Reddy & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 April, 2009 in the light of Sections 215,216,218,221and 464 . In unmistakable terms,Section 464 specifies that a finding or sentence of a court shall not be set aside merely on the ground that a charge was not framed or that charge was defective unless it has occasioned in prejudice. Because of a mere defect in language or in the narration or in form of the charge, the conviction would not be rendered bad if accused has not been adversely affected thereby. If the ingredients of the section are obvious or implicit, conviction in regard thereto can be sustained irrespective of the fact that the said section has not been mentioned. A fair trial to the accused is a sine quo non in our criminal justice system but at the same time procedural law contained in the Codeof Criminal Procedure is designed to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by introduction of hyper-technicalities. Every case must depend on its own merits and no straightjacket formula can be applied; the essential and important aspect to be kept in mind is: has omission to frame a specific charge resulted in prejudice to the accused. (Section 215 in particular and provision of the charges in general must be read with section 464 of the Cr.PC , ) The Constitution Bench inWillie (William) Slaney vs. State of Madhya Pradeshreported in A.I.R. 1956 SC Now, as we have said, sections 225, 232, 535 and 537(a) (of the old Cr.PC) between them, cover every conceivable typo, of error and irregularity referable to a charge that can possibly arise, ranging from cases in which there is a conviction with no charge at all from start to finish down to cases in which there is a charge but with errors, irregularities and omissions in it. The Code is emphatic that whatever the irregularity it is not to be regarded as fatal unless there is prejudice.
It is the substance that we must seek. Courts have to administer justice and justice includes the punishment of guilt just as much as the protection of innocence. Neither can be done if the shadow is mistaken for the substance and the goal is lost in a labyrinth of unsubstantial technicalities. Broad vision is required, a nice balancing of the rights of the State and the protection of society in general against protection from harassment to the individual and the risks of unjust conviction. Every reasonable presumption must be made infavour of an accused person; he must be given the benefit of every reasonable doubt. The same broad principles of justice and fair play must be brought to bear when determining a matter of prejudice as in adjudging guilt. But when all is said and done, what we are concerned to see is whether the accused bad a fair trial, whether he knew what be was being tried for, whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him fairly and clearly and whether he was given a full and fair chance to defend himself.
If all these elements are there and no prejudice is shown the conviction must stand whatever the irregularities whether traceable to the charge or to a want of one." In Darbara Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012)10 SCC 476, it has been held:-
" The defect in framing of the charges must be so serious that it cannot be covered under Sections 464/465 Cr.P.C., which provide that, an order of sentence or conviction shall not be deemed to be invalid only on the ground that no charge was framed, or that there was some irregularity or omission or misjoinder of charges, unless the court comes to the conclusion that there was also, as a consequence, a failure of justice. In determining whether any error, omission or irregularity in framing the relevant charges, has led to a failure of justice, the court must have regard to whether an objection could have been raised at an earlier stage, during the proceedings or not. While judging the question of prejudice or guilt, the court must bear in mind that every accused has a right to a fair trial, where he is aware of what he is being tried for and where the facts sought to be established against him, are explained to him fairly and clearly, and further, where he is given a full and fair chance to defend himself against the said charge(s). The "failure of justice" is an extremely pliable or facile expression, which can be made to fit into any situation in any case. The court must endeavour to find the truth. There would be „failure of justice‟; not only by unjust conviction, but also by acquittal of the guilty, as a result of unjust failure to produce requisite evidence. Of course, the rights of the accused have to be kept in mind and also safeguarded, but they should not be over emphasised to the extent of forgetting that the victims also have rights. It has to be shown that the accused has suffered some disability or detriment in respect of the protections available to him under Indian Criminal Jurisprudence. „Prejudice‟, is incapable of being interpreted in its generic sense and applied to criminal jurisprudence. The plea of prejudice has to be in relation to investigation or trial, and not with respect to matters falling outside their scope. Once the accused is able to show that there has been serious prejudice caused to him, with respect to either of these aspects, and that the same has defeated the rights available to him under jurisprudence, then the accused can seek benefit under the orders of the Court. (Vide: Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi v. State of U.P., AIR 2011 SC 3114; Rattiram & Ors. v. State of M.P. through Inspector of Police, AIR 2012 SC 1485; and Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2005 (Bhimanna v. State of Karnataka) decided on 4th September, 2012)." In Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2009) 12 SCC 546, it has been held:-
"55. In unmistakable terms, Section 464 specifies that a finding or sentence of a court shall not be set aside merely on the ground that a charge was not framed or that charge was defective unless it has occasioned in prejudice. Because of a mere defect in language or in the narration or in form of the charge, the conviction would not be rendered bad if accused has not been adversely affected thereby. If the ingredients of the section are obvious or implicit, conviction in regard thereto can be sustained irrespective of the fact that the said section has not been mentioned."
In K. Prema S. Rao and another vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao and others with State of A.P. vs. Yadla Ranga Rao and another reported in (2003)1 SCC 217, it has been held:-
"22. Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal procedure has ample provisions to meet a situation like the one before us. From the Statement of Charge framed under Section 304B and in the alternative Section 498A, IPC (as quoted above) it is clear that all facts and ingredients for framing charge for offence under Section 306, IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention of Section 306, IPC with 498A, IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the alternate charge framed under Section 498A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit suicide. The provisions of Section 221 of Cr.P.C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of the criminal court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence.
In Gurbachan Singh vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1957 SC 623], a three Judges' Bench considered the question of prejudice and observed:
"7. In judging a question of prejudice, as of guilt, courts must act with a broad vision and look to the substance and not to technicalities, and their main concern should be to see whether the accused had a fair trial, whether he knew what he was being tried for, whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him fairly and clearly and whether he was given a full and fair chance to defend himself." In Dalbir Singh vs. State of U.P. [2004 (5) SCC 334], a three Judges' Bench considered the provisions of Section 222 and 464 of the Code and observed:-
"14.....Sub-section (1) of Section 222 lays down that when a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it. Sub- section (2) of the same section lays down that when a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it. Section 222 CrPC is in the nature of a general provision which empowers the court to convict for a minor offence even though charge has been framed for a major offence. Illustrations (a) and (b) to the said section also make the position clear. However, there is a separate chapter in the Code of Criminal Procedure, namely, Chapter XXXV which deals with irregular proceedings and their effect. This chapter enumerates various kinds of irregularities which have the effect of either vitiating or not vitiating the proceedings. Section 464 of the Code deals with the effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in, charge. Sub-section (1) of this section provides that no finding, sentence or order by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. This clearly shows that any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges shall not result in invalidating the conviction or order of a competent court unless the appellate or revisional court comes to the conclusion that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby."
The three Judges' Bench then referred to the earlier judgments in Willie (William) Slaney vs. State of M.P. (A.I.R. 1956 SC 116), Gurbachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra) and observed:-
"17. There is a catena of decisions of this Court on the same lines and it is not necessary to burden this judgment by making reference to each one of them. Therefore, in view of Section 464 CrPC, it is possible for the appellate or revisional court to convict an accused for an offence for which no charge was framed unless the court is of the opinion that a failure of justice would in fact occasion. In order to judge whether a failure of justice has been occasioned, it will be relevant to examine whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which he is being convicted and whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him clearly and whether he got a fair chance to defend himself. We are, therefore, of the opinion that Sangaraboina Sreenu was not correctly decided as it purports to lay down as a principle of law that where the accused is charged under Section 302 IPC, he cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 306 IPC."
21. The ratio of the above noted judgments is that in certain situations an accused can be convicted of an offence with which he may not have been specifically charged and that an error, omission or irregularity in the framing of charge is, by itself not sufficient for upsetting the conviction. The appellate, confirming or revisional Court can interfere in such matters only if it is shown that error, omission or irregularity in the framing of charge has caused prejudice to the accused and failure of justice has been occasioned."
Supreme Court of India
Shamnsaheb M.Multtani vs State Of Karnataka on 24 January, 2001 What is meant by a minor offence for the purpose of Section 222 of the Code? Although the said expression is not defined in the Code it can be discerned from the context that the test of minor offence is not merely that the prescribed punishment is less than the major offence. The two illustrations provided in the section would bring the above point home well. Only if the two offences are cognate offences, wherein the main ingredients are common, the one punishable among them with a lesser sentence can be regarded as minor offence vis-à-vis the other offence.
The composition of the offence under Section 304-B IPC is vastly different from the formation of the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC and hence the former cannot be regarded as minor offence vis-à-vis the latter. However, the position would be different when the charge also contains the offence under Section 498-A IPC (Husband or relative of husband of a women subjecting her to cruelty). As the word cruelty is explained as including, inter alia, harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
take the case of an accused who was called upon to defend only a charge under Section 302 IPC. The burden of proof never shifts on to him. It ever remains on the prosecution which has to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. The said traditional legal concept remains unchanged even now. In such a case the accused can wait till the prosecution evidence is over and then to show that the prosecution has failed to make out the said offence against him. No compulsory presumption would go to the assistance of the prosecution in such a situation. If that be so, when an accused has no notice of the offence under Section 304B IPC, as he was defending a charge under Section 302 IPC alone, would it not lead to a grave miscarriage of justice when he is alternatively convicted under Section 304B IPC and sentenced to the serious punishment prescribed thereunder, which mandates a minimum sentence of imprisonment for seven years.
The serious consequence which may ensue to the accused in such a situation can be limned through an illustration:- If a bride was murdered within seven years of her marriage and there was evidence to show that either on the previous day or a couple of days earlier she was subjected to harassment by her husband with demand for dowry, such husband would be guilty of the offence on the language of Section 304-B IPC read with Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. But if the murder of his wife was actually committed either by a decoit or by a militant in a terrorist act the husband can lead evidence to show that he had no hand in her death at all. If he succeeds in discharging the burden of proof he is not liable to be convicted under Section 304B, IPC. But if the husband is charged only under Section 302 IPC he has no burden to prove that his wife was murdered like that as he can have his traditional defence that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of murder against him and claim an order of acquittal. The above illustration would amplify the gravity of the consequence befalling an accused if he was only asked to defend a charge under Section 302 IPC and was alternatively convicted under Section 304B IPC without any notice to him, because he is deprived of the opportunity to disprove the burden cast on him by law.
In such a situation, if the trial court finds that the prosecution has failed to make out the case under Section 302 IPC, but the offence under Section 304-B IPC has been made out, the court has to call upon the accused to enter on his defence in respect of the said offence. Without affording such an opportunity to the accused, a conviction under Section 304-B IPC would lead to real and serious miscarriage of justice. Even if no such count was included in the charge, when the court affords him an opportunity to discharge his burden by putting him to notice regarding the prima facie view of the court that he is liable to be convicted under Section 304B IPC, unless he succeeds in disproving the presumption, it is possible for the court to enter upon a conviction of the said offence in the event of his failure to disprove the presumption.
In State of A.P. v. Thakkidiram Reddy, (1998) 6 SCC 554, this Court considered the issue of not framing the proper charges. In that case averment had been raised that charges have not been framed against the accused persons in accordance withSection 211Cr.P.C.. In that case the charge had been framed underSection 148IPC, though it was alleged that they were the members of an unlawful assembly, it was not mentioned what its common object was. Besides, it was contended, a charge underSection 302IPC simpliciter was framed against all the accused persons and not with the aid ofSection 149IPC for which they were convicted by the trial court. In judging a question of prejudice, as of guilt, court must act with a broad vision and look to the substance and not to technicalities, and its main concern should be to see whether the accused had a fair trial, whether he knew what he was being tried for, whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him fairly and clearly and whether he was given a full and fair chance to defend himself. In the said case this Court ultimately came to the conclusion that in spite of defect in framing of charge, as no prejudice had been caused to the convicts, no interference was required. In Gurnaib Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (7) SCC 108, it has been held:-
"20. There is no dispute that no charge was framed under Section 306 IPC. Though the charge has not been framed under Section 306 yet on a question that has been put under Section 313, it is clear as crystal that they were aware that they are facing a charge under Section 304B IPC which related not to administration of poison but to consumption of poison by the deceased because of demand of dowry and harassment. It is major evidence in comparison to Section 306 IPC which deals with abetment to suicide by a bride in the context of clause (a) of Section 498A IPC. The test is whether there has been failure of justice or prejudice has been caused to the accused.
In Shamnsaheb M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka (2001) 2 SCC 577, a three-Judge Bench, while dealing with the concept of "failure of justice", has opined thus:-
"23. We often hear about "failure of justice" and quite often the submission in a criminal court is accentuated with the said expression. Perhaps it is too pliable or facile an expression which could be fitted in any situation of a case. The expression "failure of justice" would appear, sometimes, as an etymological chameleon (the simile is borrowed from Lord Diplock in Town Investments Ltd. v. Deptt. of the Environment 1978 AC 359. The criminal court, particularly the superior court should make a close examination to ascertain whether there was really a failure of justice or whether it is only a camouflage.
24. One of the cardinal principles of natural justice is that no man should be condemned without being heard, (audi alteram partem). But the law reports are replete with instances of courts hesitating to approve the contention that failure of justice had occasioned merely because a person was not heard on a particular aspect. However, if the aspect is of such a nature that non-explanation of it has contributed to penalising an individual, the court should say that since he was not given the opportunity to explain that aspect there was failure of justice on account of non-compliance with the principle of natural justice."
In Ramesh Vithal Patil vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in 2014 (11) SCC 516, it has been held:-
"18. It is true that the appellant was not charged under Section 306 of the IPC. The charge was under Section 304-B of the IPC. It was, however, perfectly legal for the High Court to convict him for offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. In this connection, we may usefully refer to Narwinder Singh (2011) 2 SCC 47. In that case the accused was charged under Section 304-B of the IPC. The death had occurred within seven years of the marriage. The trial court convicted the accused for an offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC. Upon reconsideration of the entire evidence, the High Court came to the conclusion that the deceased had not committed suicide on account of demand for dowry, but, due to harassment caused by the husband in particular. The High Court acquitted the parents of the accused and converted the conviction of the accused from one under Section 304-B of the IPC to Section 306 of the IPC. This Court dismissed the appeal filed by the accused. It was observed that it is a settled proposition of law that mere omission or defect in framing charge would not disable the court from convicting the accused for the offence which has been found to be proved on the basis of the evidence on record. In such circumstances, the matter would fall within the purview of Sections 221(1) and (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973."
In Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 SC 2078, this Court held: "10. Therefore, if during trial the Trial Court, on 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, and there can be no legal bar to appropriately act as the exigencies of the case warrant or necessitate."
21. Such power empowering alteration/addition of charge(s), can also be exercised by the appellate court, in exercise of its powers under Sections 385(2) and 386 Cr.P.C. Sanichar Sahni v. State of Bihar, AIR 2010 SC 3786, while considering the issue placed reliance upon various judgments of this Court particularly in Topandas v. State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 33; Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P., AIR 1956 SC 116; Fakhruddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 1326; State of A.P. v. Thakkidiram Reddy, AIR 1998 SC 2702; Ramji Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 3853; and Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2006 SC 191, and came to the following conclusion : "27. Therefore,.................. unless the convict is able to establish that defect in framing the charges has caused real prejudice to him and that he was not informed as to what was the real case against him and that he could not defend himself properly, no interference is required on mere technicalities. Conviction order in fact is to be tested on the touchstone of prejudice theory." In Narwindar Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 2011 (2) SCC 47, it has been held:-
" It is a settled proposition of law that mere omission or defect in framing charge would not disable the Court from convicting the accused for the offence which has been found to be proved on the basis of the evidence on record. In such circumstances, the matter would fall within the purview of Section 221 (1) and (2) of the Cr.P.C.
23. In the facts of the present case, the High Court very appropriately converted the conviction under Section 304- B to one under Section 306 IPC. In our opinion, there has been no failure of justice in the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC by the High Court, even though the specific charge had not been framed. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court."
Comments