Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Kerala High Court in the matter of Santhosh @ Chandu v. State, has held that irregularity caused by the misjoinder of charges doesn't vitiate conviction unless miscarriage of justice is proved.

What was the Background of Santhosh @ Chandu v. State Case?

• In this case, the appellant was the sole accused and was convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The Trial Court convicted the appellant in a joint trial, and he has preferred to appeal before the High Court of Kerala alleging misjoinder of charges.
• It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that such a misjoinder of charges under Section 218 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) caused prejudice to the appellant and therefore the conviction is liable to be set aside.
• The High Court held that there was no illegality in the conviction by the Trial Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice P G Ajithkumar observed that from the nature of evidence let in by the prosecution, which is adverted to above, it is quite clear that separate evidence was brought in concerning each head of the charges. No occasion resulting in miscarriage of justice or prejudice to the appellant is pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae. On an anxious consideration of the evidence on record, I am convinced that there occurred no failure of justice on account of such a misjoinder of charge. In the circumstances, the conviction of the appellant is quite legal; in spite of such a misjoinder of charges. Hence, the Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction.
• It was further held that on a reading of sub-section (1) of Section 464 of CrPC it is explicit that misjoinder of charges is an irregularity. It is explained that unless their occasioned failure of justice, an irregularity on account of misjoinder of charges does not invalidate a conviction.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 218 of CrPC

• This Section deals with separate charges for distinct offences. It states that -

(1) For every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately.

Provided that where the accused person, by an application in writing, so desires and the Magistrate is of opinion that such person is not likely to be prejudiced thereby, the Magistrate may try together all or any number of the charges framed against such person.

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect the operation of the provisions of sections 219, 220, 221 and 223.

Section 464 of CrPC

About:

• This Section deals with the effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in, charge. It states that—

(1) 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.

(2) If the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, is of opinion that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned, it may —

(a) 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.

(b) 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 the 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.

Case Law:

• In the case of Krishnan Kutty v. State of Kerala (2023), the Kerala High Court held that assuming that there was a legal impediment in clubbing of charges in the light of the provision contained in Section 464 of CrPC, the trial cannot be vitiated on account of the same, provided, no failure of justice has occasioned on account of the same.