LexSANTOSH KUMARI versus STATE OF J & K & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c (2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1054 SANTOSH KUMARI v. STATE OF J & K & OTHERS (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1660-1662 of 2011) SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 [J.M. PANCHAL AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1989 (1933 A.D.) (as applicable in the St;ite of Jammu and Kashmir): ss.267 to 269 - Framing of charge - Held: Every charge framed under the Code should state the offence with which the accused is charged and if the Jaw which creates the offence gives it pny specific name, the offence should also be 0 described in the charge by that name only - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Bail - Interim bail - Accused charg~d for committing offence ulss.302, 109, 147, 148, 149 of the Ranbir Penal code - Trial court framed the charge which contained E particulars as to the time, place, date of the offence of rioting and the place where the deceased succumbed to his injuries - High Court set aside the order of the trial court framing the charges against the accused observing that mere mention of the sections of the Jaw in the charge was likely to prejudice F the accused in his trial and that he would be disabled to know the exact charge he had to face and remanded the case to the trial court to consider it in terms of ss.267 to" 269 and also directed release of all the accused except accused 'S' - On appeal, held: The order of the High Court was erroneous - G The nature of charge was clearly understood by each accused - The cross-examination of eye. witnesses on behalf of the accused indicated that none of the accused was in fact misled by so.-ca/led error pointe"d out by High Court - The remand of case to trial court for fresh consideration on the H 1054 SANTOSH KUMAR! v. STATE OF J & K & ORS. 1055 point of charge was not warranted at all, as there was nothing A to suggest even remotely that the accused had or would have been misled by any error or omission in the charge - The order admitting the accused except accused 'S' to interim bail of Rs.25,0001- each to the satisfaction of the-..trial court pending consideration of the prosecution case afresh on B question of charge, was not warranted nor justified at all - The fact that accused were involved in commission of murder which entails death or life imprisonment should have been taken into consideration before releasing them on interim bail - Trial court after having considered the gravity of the offence c and the apprehension on the part of the prosecution that the accused would tamper with the evidence in the event of their release on bail had rightly refused to enlarge the accused on bail - High Court while granting the relief of bail to the accused completely ignored and overlooked the relevant factors which 0 weighed heavily against the accused - Moreover, the fact that complainant and one of the witnesses were physically assaulted and threatened in the Court premises has to be given its due weight - The FIR was pending necessary investigation wherein the statement of the son of the appellant E was recorded uls. 164 - The contents of the FIR would indicate that the accused either themselves or through their relatives would try to tamper the evidence which is going to be led by the prosecution in the case - Under the circumstances, release of the accused on interim bail is set aside - Ranbir Penal code - ss.302, 109, 147, 148, 149. F Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Object of - Held: Like all procedural laws, the Code of Cnminal Procedure is devised to subserve the ends of justice G and not to frustrate them by mere technicalities - It regards some of its provisions as vital but others not, and a breach of the latter is a curable irregularity unless the accused is prejudiced thereby. H 1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A Framing of charge - Object of - Held: The object of the charge is to give the accused notice of the matter he is charged with and does not touch jurisdiction - If, therefore, the necessary information is conveyed to him in other ways and there is no prejudice, the framing of the charge is not B invalidated - The object of the statement of particulars to be mentioned in the charge is to enable the accused person to know the substantive charge, he will have to meet and to be ready for it before the evidence is given - The extent of the particulars necessary to be given in the charge depends upon c the facts and the circumstances of each case - In draw
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.