- 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.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
