LexSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. versus LAISAL HAQUE & ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. v. LAISAL HAQUE & ORS. ETC. SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 [A.P. SEN AND L.M. SHARMA, JJ.] Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 215, 218, 221, 374, 386(b ), 464; Separate trial of each accused person for every distinct offence-There must not be any doubt as to 'a single act or series of acts'-Only when there is error in stating the offence of the particulars required and it has occasioned a failure of justice is accused entitled to relief The respondents, sixteen in number, were members of a riotous mob comprising 40/50 persons who were armed with deadly weapons. They along with others, went inside the complianant's oil mill where respondent No. l, Laisal Haque, opened fire with his pipegun at Gulam Rabbani which ultimately resulted in his death. They also assaulted other persons inside the mill. Forty-two persons were arraigned to stand their trial under s. 148 and ss. 302 and 324, read with s. 149 I.P.C. The Additionii} Sessions Judge also framed a separate charge against respondent No. l, Laisal Haque, under s. 302 simpliciter, and convicted him under s. 148 as well as under s. 302. The Additional Sessions Judge convicted the other respondents under s. 147 or s. 148 and s. 324 read with s. 149, and acquitted the remaining 26 accused persons. The High Court, in appeal, directed retrial of the respondents on the ground of material defect in the framing of the charges which had occasioned a failure of justice. The High Court held that there was no warrant of framing a separate charge against respondent No. 1 under s. 302 simpliciter 'without making that charge as an alternative charge'. Allowing the appeals and remitting the appeals to the High Court for a decision afresh on merits, it was, HELD: (1) The High Court was wrong in its view that there was a fundamental defect in the framing of the charges. This was clearly a case to which s. 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which is an exception to s. 218 of the Code, applies. [875G-H] 870 STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. LAISAL HAQUE 871 (2) Section 218 embodies the general rule as to the trial of accused persons which provides for separate trial of each accused person for every distinct offence and is based on the fundamental principle of criminal law that the accused person must have notice of the charge which he has to meet. Section 221 applies to a case only when from the evidence led by the prosecution it is doubtful which of several offences has been committed by the accused person. There must not be any doubt as to 'a single act or series of acts' which constitutes the transac- tion, that is to say, there must not be any doubt as to the facts. The doubt must be as to the inference to be deduced from these facts, thus making it 'doubtful' which of several offences the facts which can be proved will constitute. In the instant case, there is no doubt as to the facts. [87SH, 876A-B] (3) There are serious infirmities in the order rendered by the High Court. Section 215 of the Code provides that no error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence or those particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission, and it had occasioned a failure of justice. There is no material on record in the instant case on which the High Court could have reached to such a conclusion. [878A-B] (4) In judging a question of prejudice, as of guilt, the Court must act with a broad vision and look to the substance and not to the tech- nicalities, and their main concern should be as to see whether the accused had a fair trial, whether he knew what he was being tried for, whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him fairly and clearly, and whether he was given a full and fair chance to defend himself. That test is clearly fulfilled in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. [878F-H] Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1953] 2 SCR 1140; K.C. Mathew & Ors. v. State of Travancore-Cochin, [1955] 2 SCR 1057; Gurbachan Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 623; Eirichh Bhuian & Ors. v. State of Bihar, [1963] Suppl. 2 SCR 328 and State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas & Anr., [1982] 2 SCC 463, referred to. (5) The High Court failed tO" appreciate that in an appe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.