Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash charge framing order due to alleged discrepancy between injury and X-ray reports. High Court distinguished reliance on precedents and dismissed application as lacking merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(A.F.R.) Reserved on 29.10.2021 Delivered on 02.11.2021
Court No. - 93
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15632 of 2007
Applicant :- Rakesh Singh And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- R.N.Sharma,Atul Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Jata Shankar Pandey
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
2
Gurudayal Singh came at the spot and picked up the complainant-injured Om Prakash. The accused-persons hurling abusive words threatened that if any one comes forward to become witness of this incident, will have to face dire consequences. In the incident, three persons, namely, Rakesh Yadav, Om Prakash and Navichand have sustained injuries.
In the opinion of the Medical Officer (E.D.), injury no.1 was kept under observation and injury no.(ii) is simple in nature. Caused No. (i) by sharp edged object and No. (ii) by hard blunt object and are about fresh in duration.
3
gunshot injury. He further argued that on the basis of the said discrepancy, a charge under Section 307 IPC could not be framed against the applicants and the learned Trial Court has committed manifest error in doing so. Learned counsel for the applicants also placed reliance upon the judgement of Apex Court in the case of P. Kartikalakshmi Vs. Sri Ganesh and another reported in (2017) 3 SCC 347, wherein it has been held that the power to alter the charge is vested only in court as per the intent and purpose of Section 216 of Cr.P.C. and it is not open for the prosecution or the accused to pray for alteration of charge. However, the said case law is limited only to the provisions of Section 216 of Cr.P.C. which states about adding or altering the charge. The word “adding” means addition of new charge/section and the word “alter” indicates to correct any typographical error committed in the charge framed. The intent of the legislature was not at all to alter the sections of the charge framed. It is settled law that charge once framed can never be deleted before the pronouncement of judgement and, therefore, this case law does not help the applicants at all in the present case.
4
“At the initial stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with proof but with a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which, if put to trial, could prove him guiltyAll that the court has to see is that the material on record and the facts would be compatible with the innocence of the accused or not.”
“221. Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed.
5
(1) If a single act or series of acts is of such a nature that it is doubtful which of several offences the facts which can be proved will constitute, the accused may be charged with having committed all or any of such offences, and any number of such charges may be tried at once; or he may be charged in the alternative with having committed some one of the said offences.
(2) If in such a case the accused is charged with one offence, and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged under the provisions of sub-section (1), he may be convicted of the offence which he is shown to have committed, although he was not charged with it.”
“222. When offence proved included in offence charged.
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(3) When a person is charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an attempt to commit such offence although the attempt is not separately charged.
6
(4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a conviction of any minor offence where the conditions requisite for the initiation of proceedings in respect of that minor offence have not been satisfied.”
"224. Withdrawal of remaining charges on conviction on one of several charges.
When a charge containing more heads than one is framed against the same person, and when a conviction has been had on one or more of them, the complainant, or the officer conducting the prosecution, may, with the consent of the Court, withdraw the remaining charge or charges, or the Court of its own accord may stay the inquiry into, or trial of, such charge or charges and such withdrawal shall have the effect of an acquittal on such charge or charges, unless the conviction be set aside, in which case the said Court (subject to the order of the Court setting aside the conviction) may proceed with the inquiry into, or trial of, the charge or charges so withdrawn.”
7
Trial Court at the stage of pronouncement of judgement during the course of trial by just and fair analysis of ocular and expert evidence produced thereto by either parties. At that stage, the said defect, if any, in framing of charge can be cured by invoking the powers vested in the Trial Court under Sections 221, 222 and 224 of Cr.P.C.
Order Date :- 02.11.2021 Siddhant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether discrepancy in injury and X-ray reports warrants quashing of framed charge under Section 307 IPC.
Whether inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is exercisable to delete a charge or is procedural defect curable during trial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Kartikalakshmi Vs. Sri Ganesh and anotherDistinguished¶17
(2017) 3 SCC 347, P. Kartikalakshmi Vs. Sri Ganesh and another · Who else cites this
Rukmini Narvekar Vs. Vijaya Satardekar and OthersDistinguished¶21
(2008) 14 SCC 1 Rukmini Narvekar Vs. Vijaya Satardekar and Others · Who else cites this
Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and anotherFollowed¶22
(2012) 9 SCC 460 Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and another · Who else cites this
Sri Kali Charan Shaw Vs. The State of West Bengal and AnotherFollowed¶27
(2017) CriLJ 2385 Sri Kali Charan Shaw Vs. The State of West Bengal and Another · Who else cites this
Devinder Mohan Zakhmi Vs. Amritsar Improvement Trust and OthersFollowed¶20
(2002) CriLJ 4485 Devinder Mohan Zakhmi Vs. Amritsar Improvement Trust and Others · Who else cites this
Dalbir Singh Vs. State of U.P.Followed¶20
(2004) CriLJ 2025 Dalbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. · Who else cites this
Virendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P.Followed¶20
(2007) CriLJ 1435 Virendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. · Who else cites this
Amar Nath Vs. State of HaryanaFollowed¶51
(1977) 4 SCC 551 Amar Nath Vs. State of Haryana · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Rakesh Singh And Others
State of U.P.
Another
Krishan Pahal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
