Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo and others v. State of Punjab has held that for conversion of charges to be a ground for appeal there must be failure of justice. 

What was the Background of the Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo and others v. State of Punjab Case? 

• In the present case, the prosecution met with an accident and a fight started between the two. 
• To stop the fight other victims intervened but the fight resulted in injuries to the victims and one of the victims died. 
• First Information Report (FIR) was registered for the offences under sections 307 and 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) read with section 149, IPC and section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act (AA) and consequently offence under section 302, IPC was added to the said FIR 
• The trial court convicted the appellants. 
• Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial court the appellants approached the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the court confirmed the order of the Trial Court. 
• The Appellant then filed a Special Leave petition before the Supreme Court on the ground that  
  • The High Court did not dwell upon the distinction between common object and common intention while converting the appellants' conviction under section 302 IPC read with section 149 IPC to section 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that: 
  • The ambit of common intention and common object to be adjudicated by the Trial court and at last by the High Court, the Supreme Court has not duty to examine the same. 
  • Section 464 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) states that an appeal cannot be filed solely on the ground of conversion of charges unless there is miscarriage of justice. 
  • The appellants had sufficient opportunity to defend themselves at trial stages and were well aware of their charges so there is no scope of miscarriage of justice. 
• The Supreme Court, based on the above observations dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the High Court. 

Section 464 of CrPC 

• This section is now covered under Section 510 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.(BNSS) 
• This section states the provisions for the effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in, charge. 
  • Failure of Justice: 
    • Clause (1) states 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. 
    • Clause (2) states that if the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, is of opinion that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned, it may, — 
  • Omission to Frame: 
    • In the case of an omission to frame a charge, order that a charge be framed, and that the trial be recommended from the point immediately after the framing of the charge. 
  • Error, Omission or Irregularity: 
    • In the case of an error, omission or irregularity in the charge, direct a new trial to be had upon a charge framed in whatever manner it thinks fit. 
    • Provided that if the Court is of opinion that the facts of the case are such that no valid charge could be preferred against the accused in respect of the facts proved, it shall quash the conviction 

What is Alteration or Addition of Charges? 

• About: 
  • A charge may be altered or added by the court at any stage before the judgment is pronounced.
• Section 216 of CrPC: 
  • Section 216 of CrPC deals with ‘court may alter charge’. This provision explains that courts shall have the power to alter or add to charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. 
  • When the court finds that there is sufficient evidence to prove any offence which was not charged by the court earlier, the charge may be altered during the trial. 
  • If an alteration or addition to a charge is likely prejudiced to the accused, the court may proceed with the original charge.
• Purpose: 
  • The main purpose of this provision is to serve the interests of justice.
• Section 217 of CrPC: 
  • Section 217 of CrPC deals with ‘recalling of witness when charge is altered’. 
  • The court can recall the witness when the charge is altered or added by the court after the commencement of the trial.
• Addition or Alteration of Charge under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): 
  • Section 239 of BNSS covers addition or alteration of charge. 
  • Section 240 of BNSS covers recall of witnesses when charge altered.
• Landmark Judgements: 
  • P. Kartikalakshmi v. Sri Ganesh and Another (2017): 
    • In this case the Supreme Court observed that if there was an omission in the framing of the charge and if it comes to the knowledge of the Court trying the offence, the power is always vested in the Court, as provided under Section 216 CrPC to either alter or add the charge and that such power is available with the Court at any time before the judgment is pronounced. 
    • After such alteration or addition, when the final decision is rendered, it will be open for the parties to work out their remedies in accordance with law.
  • State of Kerala v. Azeez Case (2019): 
    • The Kerala High Court held that the power under Section 216 of CrPC to alter the charge exists only with the court and cannot be based upon an application by any of the parties.