Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

The bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed that the charge once framed must lead to either acquittal or conviction at the conclusion of the trial.

• The Supreme Court gave this observation in the matter of Dev Narain v. State of UP and Another.

Background

• The case relates to a dowry death of woman and death of her husband wherein the prime revisionist is her brother-in-law.
• The brother-in-law contended that he was not living with either of the deceased, hence, could not be a beneficiary of any demand of dowry allegedly made by the husband of the deceased wife from deceased and her family members.
• The brother-in-law of the deceased moved an application for discharge before Trial Court, which was rejected, and case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
• The HC upheld the order of the Trial Court but permitted him to move an application for alteration of charge under Section 216 Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before the Trial Court.
• However, HC during revision noted that the revisionist prayed from quashing of charges levelled upon him.

Court’s Observation

• The HC observed that a Trial Court cannot delete the charges framed by it because it does not have such powers under procedural law.

Charge

• A charge can be understood as a formal accusation made by the prosecution against an individual who is alleged to have committed a criminal offence.
• Section 2 (b) of CrPC defines ‘charge’ in following words, ‘charge’ includes any head of the charge when the charge contains more head than one.
• The framing of charges is a pivotal stage in a criminal trial.
  • It informs the accused about the nature of the allegations they are facing, allowing them to prepare their defence accordingly.
• The process of framing charges is enshrined under Section 211 to 224 of the CrPC.

Alteration of Charge

• The alteration of charges under the CrPC holds significant importance in the realm of criminal trials in India.
• It enables the courts to modify or amend the charges framed against an accused during the course of a trial, based on the evidence presented and the evolving understanding of the case.
• The process of altering charges seeks to strike a balance between the interests of justice and the rights of the accused.
• Section 216 of the CrPC primarily governs the alteration of charges.
• Section 216 states that:
• Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.
• Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused.
• If alteration/amendment does not prejudice the right to defence or prosecute, the court may proceed with the trial as if the altered or added charge had been the original charge.
• If alteration/amendment prejudices the right to defence or prosecute, the court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary.
• If the offence stated in altered/ amended charges requires previous sanction the case shall not be proceeded with until such sanction is obtained, unless sanction has been already obtained.

Deletion of Charge

• The CrPC outlines the procedure for deleting charges through Section 227 that is designed to safeguard the rights of the accused and prevent the misuse of legal processes.
• Section 227 empowers the court to discharge the accused if, after considering the material on record and hearing the arguments of the parties, it is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
  • However, the term ‘deletion of charge’ is nowhere mentioned under this provision, the usage of term ‘discharge’ is generally interpreted as deletion of charge.
• Section 216 CrPC only gives power to the court to correct the erroneous or improperly levelled charge or add a required charge. There is no reference to the deletion of any charge.
• On literal interpretation of Section 216 CrPC, charges cannot be quashed by presenting application under Section 216 CrPC.

Landmark Cases

• Anant Prakash Sinha v. State of Haryana (2016):
  • The SC held that Section 216 CrPC confers jurisdiction on all courts, to alter or add to any charge framed earlier, at any time before the judgment is pronounced.
  • It further stated that the courts can exercise this power only when there exists some material before the court which has some connection or link with the charges sought to be amended, added or modified.
• P. Kartikalakshmi v. Sri Ganesh and another (2017):
  • The SC held that it is now well settled that the power vested in the Court under Section 216 is exclusive to the Court and there is no right in any party to seek such addition or alteration by filing any application as a matter of right.