KALICHARAN & ORS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 56 · Decided: 14-12-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
56
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
KALICHARAN & ORS.
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2021)
DECEMBER 14, 2022
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.213, 313 – Failure to
comply with the requirements of s.213 and s.313 – The Fast track
Court convicted accused nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 for offences punishable
u/s. 302, 307 of the IPC along with other sections – Allegation that
accused no. 1,3,4 were armed with sharp edged weapons and
accused no.2 with pistol – It was also alleged that accused no. 2
murdered deceased (‘H’) by firing bullets from his pistol – Held: In
cross-examination PW-1 stated that he was not aware whether bullets
hit victim (‘H’) or not – PW-2 also came out with the same version –
PW-3-doctor who performed post mortem stated that deceased
suffered injuries caused by the sharp-edged weapons – He did not
deposed any bullet injuries – In the instant case, not only that a
charge was not framed on the allegation that the death was caused
due to assault physically made by the accused, a misleading charge
was framed that death was caused due to bullet injuries sustained
by the bullets fired by the accused no.2 with a pistol in his hand –
‘H’ did not receive any bullet injury – Still, the said allegation was
put to all the accused in the examination u/s. 313 – Thus, not only
that the charge framed was misleading, but most material
circumstance brought on record against the accused in the evidence
that ‘H’ died due to injuries caused by the attack made by accused
nos.1,3 and 4 was not put any of the accused – Thus, not only that
the charge was misleading but the accused had no opportunity to
explain the circumstance in which ‘H’ was allegedly killed which
was brought on record during the trial – Therefore, in the facts of
the case, by reason of omission to frame a proper charge in terms
of s. 213 of CrPC, and by reason of not putting important
circumstances appearing in the evidence in the statement u/s. 313
caused serious prejudice to the accused.
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 56
56
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
57
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Chapter XVII –
Provisions regarding framing of charge – Held: The object of the
said provisions is obviously to make the accused aware of the
accusations against him on the basis of which the prosecution is
seeking to convict him – The object of the provisions regarding the
framing of charge is that accused should be in a position to
effectively defend himself – An accused can properly defend himself
provided he is clearly informed about the nature of the allegations
against him before the actual trial starts – That is why there are
elaborate provisions in CrPC in that behalf.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Omission to frame a
charge or error in the charge – Power of Court of appeal – Held:
When the Court of appeal is called upon to decide whether any
failure of justice has been occasioned due to omission to frame a
charge or error in the charge, the Court is duty bound to examine
the entire record of the trial including all exhibited documents,
depositions and the statements of the accused recorded u/s. 313.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.313 – Requirement of
– Held: The requirement of Section 313 CrPC is that the accused
must be explained the circumstances appearing in the evidence
against him so that accused can offer an explanation – After an
accused is questioned under Section 313 CrPC, he is entitled to
take a call on the question of examining defence witnesses and
leading other evidence – If the accused is not explained the
important circumstances appearing against him in the evidence on
which his conviction is sought to be based, the accused will not be
in a position to explain the said circumstances brought on record
against him – He will not be able to properly defend himself.
Jai Dev v. State of Punjab [1963] 3 SCR 489; Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4
SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1963] 3 SCR 489
relied on
Para 22
[1985] 1 SCR 88
relied on
Para 22
KALICHARAN & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
58
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
122 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.05.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 2181 of 2003.
Rakesh K Khanna, Sr. Adv., Ms. Shefali Jain, Samant Singh, Aditya
Pushkal Khanna, Ramya Khanna, Ms. A

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