VINUBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL versus RAJIVBHAI DUDABHAI PATEL & OTHERS

Citation: [2018] 6 S.C.R. 1050 · Decided: 16-05-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1050
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
VINUBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL
v.
RAJIVBHAI DUDABHAI PATEL & OTHERS
(Criminal Appeal No. 1525 of 2009)
MAY 16, 2018
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Chapter XVII – ss.211,
212 and 213 – Defective framing of charges – Acquittal of accused
persons – Interference with, if permissible – Three persons died
and five persons were injured allegedly in an attack by 17 persons
– Sessions Court convicted 4 accused, while remaining 13 accused
persons were acquitted – State appeals against acquittal of various
accused, dismissed by High Court – On appeal, held: In the case
on hand where three persons died, the charge u/s.302 should have
been framed against specifically named accused with respect to
each of the deceased – However, no clear charges were framed –
Accused are entitled in law to know what is the charge on which
they are put to trial – Further, since the prosecution invoked s.149,
charges should have been framed specifying which of the accused
were sought to be punished for which offence with the aid of
s.149,IPC – Sessions Court did not record clear findings as to the
existence of an unlawful assembly – Nor was there any clear finding
regarding the common object of the assembly – High Court failed
to take note of such defects in framing of charges – However, it
would not be justified to reverse the acquittal of accused persons
in the case on hand inter alia on the grounds that the framing of
charges is erroneous – Normally, consequence thereof should be a
fresh trial, but such a course of action after a lapse of 26 years of
the occurrence of the crime would not serve any useful purpose as
some of the accused died in the interregnum – Victims of the crime
in this case are required to be compensated by the award of public
law damages – Families of each of the deceased be paid by the
State an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- each and the injured witnesses,
if still surviving, otherwise their families be paid Rs.10,00,000/-
each – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 149, 141, 143, 146-148, 307,
323 and 326 – Bombay Police Act – s.135 – Constitution of India –
Art.21 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.33 - Doctrine of vicarious liability.
[2018] 6 S.C.R. 1050
1050
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1051
Penal Code, 1860 – s.141 – Unlawful assembly – Elements
of – Discussed.
Penal Code, 1860 – s.149 – Scope and amplitude of –
Discussed.
Penal Code, 1860– ss.146-148 – Offences under, distinction
between– Discussed.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – ‘Issues’ framed under,
different from ‘Charges’ framed under CrPC, 1973 – Discussed –
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Sections 211 to 213 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973  deal with the particulars which are required to
be contained in a charge in a criminal trial. These provisions are
made to ensure a fair procedure by which a person accused of an
offence should be tried– a procedure in compliance with the
requirement of the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. The accused are entitled in law to know with precision
what is the charge on which they are put to trial. [Para 15][1061-
A-B]
1.2  In the case on hand where three persons died and five
persons were injured allegedly in an attack by all the accused,
the charge under Section 302 IPC must have been framed on
three counts against specifically named accused with respect to
each of the deceased. Causing death to each one of the three
persons or causing injury to each one of the five persons is a
distinct offence. It is also necessary that the court should record
a specific finding as to the guilt of the accused under Section 302
IPC qua the death of a named deceased. If different accused are
prosecuted for causing the death of the three different deceased,
then distinct charges should have been framed specifying which
of the accused are charged for the offence of causing the death of
which one of the three different deceased. None of the accused
is eventually found vicariously guilty of the offence under Section
302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC.  An erroneous or irregular
or even absence of a specific charge shall not render the
conviction recorded by a court invalid unless the appellate court
comes to a conclusion that failure of justice has in fact been
VINUBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL v. RAJIVBHAI
DUDABHAI PATEL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1052
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
occasioned thereby. [Paras 13, 16 a

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