LexJASVINDER SAINI & ORS. versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2013] 7 S.C.R. 340 JASVINDER SAINI & ORS. V. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) (Criminal Appeal No. 819 of 2013) JULY 2, 2013 [T.S. THAKUR AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: C s. 216 - Court's power to alter charge - Trial court subsequent to order in Rajbir's case, adding charge for offence punishable uls 302 to that already framed for offences punishable u/ss 304-8 and 498-A /PC etc. - Held: A charge u/s 3048 /PC is not a substitute for a charge of murder D punishable uls 302 - Ingredients constituting the two offences are different, thereby demanding appreciation of evidence from the perspective relevant to such ingredients - If there is evidence direct or circumstantial to prima facie support a charge u/s 302 /PC, trial court can and indeed ought to frame E su.ch a charge, which would then be the main charge and not an alternative charge as is erroneously assumed in some quarters -Order in Rajbir's case, explained - In the instant case, trial court acted mechanically, for it framed an additional charge uls 302 /PC without adverting to evidence adduced F in the case and simply on the basis of direction issued in Rajbir's case - Order passed by High Court and that passed by the trial court framing the charge uls 302 /PC are set aside and the matter is remitted to trial court for a fresh order keeping in view the observations made in the judgment. G H Charges were framed by the Addi. Session~ Jude against the appellants for offences punishable u/ss 498- A and 304-B read with s.34 IPC. Subsequently after the 340 . JASVINDER SAINI & ORS. v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT 341 OF DELHI) order of Supreme Court in Rajbir Singh's case1, the trial· A court added a further charge u/s 302 IPC. The appellants challenged the order in a writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court. The question for consideration before this Court B was: whether the trial court was justified in framing a charge u/$ 302, IPC against the appellants and whether the High Court was justified in affirming that order and dismissing the writ petition. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Court's power u/s 216, CrPC to alter or add any charge is unrestrained provided such addition and/ c or alteration is made before the judgment is pronounced. The circumstances in which such addition or alteration 0 may be made are not, however, stipulated in s.216. It is all the same trite that the question of any such addition or alternation would generally arise either because the court finds the charge already framed to be defective for any reason or because such addition is considered E necessary after the commencement of the trial having regard to the evidence that may come before the court. [para 11] [347-G; 348-A-C] 1.2 The direction in Rajbir to add a charge u/s 302 IPC where the accused are charged with s.304-B, was not F meant to be followed mechanically and without due regard to the nature of the evidence available in the case. All that this Court meant was that in a case where a charge alleging dowry death is framed, a charge u/s 302 IPC can also be framed if the evidence otherwise permits. G No other meaning could be deduced from the order of this Court. If there is evidence whether direct or circumstantial to prima facie support a charge u/s 302 1. Rajbir@ Raju & Anr. v. State of Haryana 2010 (13) SCR 886. H 342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 7 S.C.R. A IPC, the trial court can and indeed ought to frame a charge of murder punishable u/s 302 IPC, which would then be the main charge and not an alternative charge as is erroneously assumed in some quarters. If the main charge of murder is not proved against the accused at B the trial, the court can look into the evidence to determine whether the alternative charge of dowry death punishable u/s 3048 is established. A charge u/s 304-B IPC is not a substitute for a charge of murder punishable u/s 302 IPC. The ingredients constituting the two offences are c different, thereby demanding appreciation of evidence from the perspective relevant to such ingredients. The trial court, in that view of the matter, acted mechanically for it framed an additional charge u/s 302 IPC without adverting to the evidence adduced in the case and simply 0 on the basis of the direction issued in Rajbir's case. The High Court no doubt made a half hearted attempt to justify the framing of the charge independent
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.