CHANDRA PRATAP SINGH versus STATE OF M.P

Citation: [2023] 13 S.C.R. 761 · Decided: 09-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 13 S.C.R. 761 : 2023 INSC 887
761
CASE DETAILS
CHANDRA PRATAP SINGH
v.
STATE OF M.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1209 of 2011)
OCTOBER 09, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in 
altering the charge u/s. 302 read with ss. 148 and/or 149 to a charge u/s. 
302/34 IPC, and convicting and sentencing the appellant for the off ence 
punishable u/s 302/34 and u/s. 201 IPC.
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 rw s. 34, 201 – Murder – Common 
intention – Causing disappearance of evidence of off ence, or giving false 
information to screen off ender – Conviction of accused persons for the 
off ence punishable u/s. 302 rw ss. 148 and 149 and s. 201 and sentenced 
accordingly, for committing triple murder – High Court acquitted three 
of them and as regards remaining substituted their conviction with s. 
302/34, while maintaining conviction u/s. 201 – Correctness:
Held: Grave prejudice caused to the appellant by altering the charge u/s. 
302 read with ss. 148 and/or 149 to a charge u/s. 302/34 without giving any 
notice to the appellant or his advocate about the charge – No reason recorded 
in the impugned judgment to show that s.34 was applicable – No fi nding 
recorded that there was suffi  cient evidence to prove that the four accused 
who were ultimately convicted had done the criminal act in furtherance of 
a common intention – On perusal of the evidence of prosecution witness, 
there was no evidence of the presence of common intention which is the 
necessary ingredient of s. 34 – Only the act of stopping the deceased 
would not, by itself, bring the case within the purview of s.34 – No overt 
act attributed to the appellant by any prosecution witness in the assault on 
the deceased – It is diffi  cult to infer a prior meeting of minds – There is no 
overlap between common object and common intention – However, the 
 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
762
evidence of eyewitnesses very consistent on the role played by the appellant 
in dragging the dead body of the deceased and throwing the same into a 
well – Thus, there is every justifi cation for convicting the appellant for the 
off ence punishable u/s. 201 of causing the disappearance of the evidence 
of the crime – Appellant’s conviction u/s. 302/ 34 set aside, however, the 
conviction for the off ence punishable u/s. 201 is confi rmed – Appellant 
having already undergone the sentence, the bail bonds are cancelled. [Para 
13-16, 18-20]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 386 rw s. 216 – Appeal 
against conviction – Power of court to alter or add the charge – Notice of 
the charge proposed to be altered or added to the accused – Necessity of:
Held: In view of the wide powers conferred by s. 386 Cr.PC, an 
Appellate Court can exercise the power u/s. 216 of altering or adding the 
charge – Principles of natural justice require the appellate court to put the 
accused to the notice of the charge proposed to be altered or added when 
prejudice is likely to be caused to the accused by alteration or addition of 
charges – Unless the accused is put to notice that the appellate court intends 
to alter or add a charge in a particular manner, his advocate cannot eff ectively 
argue the case – Court can give the notice of the proposed alteration or 
addition of the charge even by orally informing the accused or his advocate 
when the appeal is being heard – Court can grant a short time to the advocates 
for both sides to prepare themselves for addressing the Court on the altered 
or added charge. [Para 12]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Mala Singh v. State of Haryana (2019) 5 SCC 127 : [2019] 3 SCR 
932; Chittarmal v. State of Rajasthan (2003) 2 SCC 266 : [2003] 1 SCR 
49 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
1209 of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.12.2004 of the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in CRLA No. 992 of 1992.
763
Appearances:
D. S. Naidu, Sr. Adv., Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Ms. Komal Mundhra, 
Ananvay Anand Vardhan, Ms. Divya Narayan, Saurabh Agrawal, Advs. for 
the Appellant.
Sunny Choudhary, Abhimanyu Singh, Karan Bishnoi, Prithvi Raj 
Singh, Advs. for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. This is an appeal by accused no. 2 who has been convicted by the 
High Court for the off ence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.