DR NALLAPAREDDY SRIDHAR REDDY versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 1116 · Decided: 21-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HRISHIKESH ROY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1116
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
DR NALLAPAREDDY SRIDHAR REDDY
v.
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS
(Criminal Appeal No. 1934 of 2019)
JANUARY 21, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 216 – Framing of Additional charges – Scope of the power
– Held: s. 216 provides  to the Court exclusive and wide ranging
power to change or alter any charge – Court can exercise the power
to add charges at any stage before the judgment is pronounced –
The test to be adopted by the Court is that the material brought on
record needs to have direct nexus with the ingredients of the alleged
offence – The Court must exercise such power judiciously and ensure
that no prejudice is caused to the accused – In the facts of the
present case, High Court rightly framed additional charges.
Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 406 and 420 – Prosecution u/s. 498A of IPC and ss. 3 and
4 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Application for framing additional
charges u/s. 406 and 420 IPC – Denied by trial court – High Court
directed framing of additional charges – Appeal to Supreme Court
– Held: There exists sufficient material on record that shows a
connection or link with the ingredients of offences u/ss. 406 and
420 – High Court has spelled out the reasons that have necessitated
the addition of the charge, hence need no interference.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 216 of Cr.P.C. provides the court an
exclusive and wide-ranging power to change or alter any charge.
The use of the words “at any time before judgment is pronounced”
in Sub-Section (1) empowers the court to exercise its powers of
altering or adding charges even after the completion of evidence,
arguments and reserving of the judgment. The alteration or
addition of a charge may be done if in the opinion of the court
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 1116
1116
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1117
there was an omission in the framing of charge or if upon prima
facie examination of the material brought on record, it leads the
court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the
factual ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The test to
be adopted by the court while deciding upon an addition or
alteration of a charge is that the material brought on record needs
to have a direct link or nexus with the ingredients of the alleged
offence. Addition of a charge merely commences the trial for the
additional charges, whereupon, based on the evidence, it is to be
determined whether the accused may be convicted for the
additional charges. The court must exercise its powers under
Section 216 judiciously and ensure that no prejudice is caused to
the accused and that he is allowed to have a fair trial. The only
constraint on the court’s power is the prejudice likely to be caused
to the accused by the addition or alteration of charges. Sub-Section
(4) accordingly prescribes the approach to be adopted by the
courts where prejudice may be caused. Section 217 of CrPC deals
with recalling of witnesses when the charge is altered or added
by the court after commencement of the trial. [Paras 15 and
20][1125-F; 1128-G; 1129-A-C]
2.1. In the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent
before this Court, depositions of PW 1 (LW 1), PW 5 (LW 12) and
PW 6 (LW 13) and their cross-examination have been annexed.
The material on record supports the possibility that in April 2006,
the appellant demanded Rs 5,00,000/- from PW 1, who is the
complainant, in order to secure a doctor’s job for the complainant’s
daughter in the United Kingdom. According to PW 1, he borrowed
the amount from PW 5 (brother-in-law of PW 1) and paid it to the
appellant in the presence of PW 5 and PW 6 (friend of PW 1).
Without pronouncing on the probative value of such evidence,
there exists sufficient material on record that shows a connection
or link with the ingredients of the offences under Sections 406
and 420 of the IPC, and the charges sought to be added.
Therefore, the test adopted by the High Court is correct.
[Para 23][1131-A-C]
2.2. The veracity of the depositions made by the witnesses
is a question of trial and need not be determined at the time of
framing of charge. Appreciation of evidence on merit is to be
DR NALLAPAREDDY SRIDHAR REDDY v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA
PRADESH & ORS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
done by the court only after the charges have been framed and
the trial has commenced. However, for the purpose of framing of
charge, the cou

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