Top News Headlines 2nd Apr 2022: Mere Non Framing Of Charge U/S 149 IPC Will Not Vitiate Conviction If No Prejudice Caused To Accused

Mere Non Framing Of Charge U/S 149 IPC Will Not Vitiate Conviction If No Prejudice Caused To Accused: SC

• In the case of State of UP vs Subhash @ Pappu the Apex Court has reiterated a well known principle that if the ingredients of the section are obviously implicit in the charges framed, then the conviction can be sustained, irrespective of the fact that the section was not mentioned in the chargesheet. 
• This principle has been laid down in three sections of CrPC: Sections 215, 221(2), 464 and 465. 
• Section 221(2) of CrPC states that if the accused is charged with one offence, and it clearly appears from the evidence put on record that he was guilty of another offence, he can be convicted of such last mentioned offence, though he was not specifically charged with such offence.
• Section 215 of CrPC provides that any error or omission in stating the offence or the particulars that are required to be stated in the charge will not be regarded as material at any stage of the proceedings, unless it is shown that the accused was mislead by such error or omission, and a failure of justice has occurred thereby. 
• Similarly, section 464 of CrPC also provides any finding, sentence or order of a Court of competent jurisdiction will be declared invald merely on the ground that no charge was framed, or that there was any error, omission or irregularity in the framing of charge, unless it has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. In case of an omission to frame a charge, the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision may order that the trial shall commence from the stage of framing of charge, and in case of any error, omission or irregularity in the framing of charge, the Court may order a new trial upon the new charge that is framed. 
• In the instant case, the accused Subhash was convicted by the Trial Court under section 302 read with section 148 of IPC. His appeal was allowed by the Allahabad HC and he was acquitted. The State went in appeal against the order of acquittal before the Apex Court. 
• The Hon’ble Court observed that though the accused was not specifically charged with the offence under section 302 read with section 149 of IPC, however, the ingredients of these offence and of an offence under section 148 of IPC was clearly brought to the notice of the accused. Thus, it can only  be held to be a defective framing of charge. 
• The Court referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2009) SCC and held that a mere non-framing of charge against the accused would not vitiate the conviction, if no prejudice is thereby caused to the accused. If we refer to the provisions laid down in section 464 of CrPC, we can note that a mere defect in the language or in the narration or framing of charge would not render the conviction unsustainable, unless it prejudices the accused.
• Thus, the appeal was partly allowed and it was held that though the accused cannot be convicted under section 302 r/w section 149 IPC, because the victim had died due to septicemia after a period of thirty days, nevertheless the accused were held guilty for an offence under section 304 Part 1 r/w section 149 of IPC.

Father And Uncle Incarcerated For 3 Years In POCSO Case Acquitted; Court Says Minor Influenced By Mother

• Every once in a while, we come face to face with the realisation that revenge really does not know any boundaries, and that people can really go to any lengths to seek it. Something like this has happened in the case of The State of Maharashtra vs. Abdulrehman Shahjadhussain Shaikh and anr where the victim girl’s father and uncle were acquitted after being in jail for three years, when the Court came to the conclusion that the whole case was a fabrication and was lodged because the father had divorced the mother. 
• The Court also observed that the 14 year old minor was completely under the influence of her mother. 
• The mother had told the Court in her cross examination that her husband had divorced her by pronouncing triple talaq the day that the complaint was lodged. She had three children with the accused father who worked as an auto-rickshaw driver.
• In November of 2018, the mother had lodged an FIR at the Shambhu Nagar police station and alleged that her husband and his brother (minor’s uncle) had been raping her daughter in her absence for the past three to four months. 
• The Special Judge (POCSO) observed that in the instant case, the oral evidence of the minor victim is not reliable, and that she was heavily influenced by her mother, who had separated from her husband and her mother-in-law. The Hon’ble Judge also observed that it is a well settled position of law that a child witness can be tutored. After going through the depositions and examinations of the parties, the Court came to the conclusion that there is a grudge on behalf of the wife against her husband and her brother-in-law. 
• The Court also observed that the evidence on record made it perfectly clear that the husband and the wife frequently quarrelled and that their relations were strained. However, when the minor was asked about the relations between her parents, she clearly denied the quarrels that frequently happened between the two. This showed that the victim was not being truthful.
• It is important to note that in the case of Dattu Ramrao Sakhre vs State of Maharashtra the Apex Court had observed that conviction can be based on the sole evidence of the child witness if the witness is found competent and her testimony is found trustworthy. This was clearly not the case here. 
• The Court also remarked that the victim’s deposition contradicts that of the mother on material aspects of the case. 
• The final nail in the coffin was that the medical report of the victim did not support the case of the prosecution. The report clearly stated that the hymen was intact. To this, the Court noted that penetrative sexual intercourse by two men at different times will not give a report of the hymen being intact. 
• With this, the Mumbai Sessions Court acquitted both the accused of all the charges that were levelled against them and ordered them to be released forthwith. 

Power Of Attorney Executed Outside India Must Be Stamped Within 3 Months Of Receipt In India: Andhra Pradesh HC

• In Pedapudi Alfred Johnson Jeyakaran Jesudasan V. The State of AP, Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao, under Section 18 of the Indian Stamp Act of 1899, ruled that if a General Power of Attorney (GPA) is executed outside of India without being duly stamped and is presented before the third respondent within three months, the Court has the authority to order the impoundment of the GPA. The Hon'ble Court further contended that the Registrar's rejection of the document was unwarranted.
• In this case, a writ petition was filed as the District Registrar of Vijayawada had refused to accept the GPA executed by the writ petitioner's sister, a resident of Canada, which would have authorized the DR to act as the writ petitioner's sister's GPA to sell her residential property. The basis for rejecting the GPA, as stated earlier, was a more than three months of delay in presenting it to validate it, which constituted a violation of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Regarding this, the petitioner contended that a COVID lockdown was imposed throughout the country, which restricted the petitioner from moving out. The Public prosecutor argued that the SC ruling, which increased the time limit for filing cases, only applied to cases that could not be filed due to COVID limitations. However, the petitioner's case was not a legal procedure.
• Section 18 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 deals with instruments other than bills and notes issued outside of India. It stipulates that any instrument charged with a duty executed exclusively outside of India must be stamped within three months of being received in India for the first time.
• Section 3 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 talks about the instruments chargeable with duty.
• Article 48 in Schedule I talks about power of attorney not being a Proxy.
• In a relevant case, Anitha Rajan W/o. Angoor Rajan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer (2010), it was held that when an instrument chargeable with duty is implemented outside of India but is not duly stamped, it may be taken within three months to the Collector, who shall stamp the same in such manner as the Government may by rules specify, with a stamp of such value as the Government may by rules stipulate.
• In another case, Malaysian Airlines Systems BHD v. STIC Travels (P) Ltd.2 (2001), a GPA issued in Kuala Lumpur was not stamped correctly as per the Indian Stamp Act and was objected to when submitted in an application on that basis. In this case, the Supreme Court impounded the power of attorney and directed the petitioner to deposit the required stamp duty, as well as to direct the Registrar Judicial to produce an endorsement upon production of the challan from the treasurer that the Court impounded the document and that the required stamp duty and penalty had been charged, and to present the document before the Court.
• Considering the aforementioned legislations and case laws, the Hon'ble Court observed that a GPA issued outside India and received in India related to any property located in India is subject to stamp duty. The Court further observed that the petitioner had not submitted any significant evidence to establish that he could not leave due to the lockdown orders. Furthermore, the benefit of excluding the restriction applied solely to processes brought before courts or tribunals.
• The Hon'ble Court ruled that the aforementioned authority might seize the instrument executed outside India, which is not adequately stamped, collect the requisite stamp tax and penalty, and verify the document. Furthermore, the Court stated that if a document, such as a Power of Attorney, were performed outside India on Indian non-judicial stamp paper prior to or at execution, Section 18 of the Stamps Act would not apply.
• Therefore, the Hon’ble SC allowed the writ petition.