Supreme Court clarifies charge framing under Section 302 and 304B IPC in dowry death cases: Jasvinder Saini & Ors. vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2013) INSC 477 (2 July 2013)

Date of the Judgment: 2 July 2013
Citation: (2013) INSC 477
Judges: T.S. Thakur, J., Ranjana Prakash Desai, J.
Can a trial court automatically add a murder charge (Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code) in every dowry death case (Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code)? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in Jasvinder Saini & Ors. vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi). The Court clarified that adding a murder charge requires a careful review of evidence, not just a blanket application. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench consisting of Justice T.S. Thakur and Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai.

Case Background

The case began with the unnatural death of Ms. Chandni, wife of appellant Mr. Jasvinder Saini. Her father, Ajay Gautam, filed a complaint, leading to FIR No. 765/2007. Initially, the appellants were charged under Sections 498A, 304B, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). These sections relate to dowry harassment, dowry death, criminal breach of trust, and common intention, respectively. A supplementary charge sheet later added appellants 5 to 8 and included Section 302 of the IPC, which deals with murder.

The case was committed to the Sessions Court. The Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini, Delhi, initially found no evidence to support a charge under Section 302 IPC. Consequently, charges were framed under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34 of the IPC. However, the trial court later added a charge under Section 302 of the IPC, based on a previous Supreme Court order.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the Additional Sessions Judge did not find sufficient evidence to frame a charge under Section 302 of the IPC. The trial court framed charges under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34 of the IPC. However, following the Supreme Court’s order in Rajbir @ Raju & Anr. v. State of Haryana, the trial court added a charge under Section 302 of the IPC. The trial court considered itself bound by the Supreme Court’s direction. The High Court of Delhi upheld the trial court’s decision, stating that additional evidence is not always necessary to add or alter a charge. The High Court also noted the autopsy report suggested a “homicidal” death, further justifying the charge under Section 302 of the IPC.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This section allows a court to alter or add to any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. Specifically, Section 216 of the CrPC states:

“216. Court may alter charge – (1) Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. (2) Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused. (3) If the alteration or addition to a charge is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is not likely, in the opinion of the Court, to prejudice the accused in his defense or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case, the Court may, in its discretion, after such alteration or addition has been made, proceed with the trial as if the altered or added charge had been the original charge. (4) If the alteration or addition is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is likely, in the opinion of the Court, to prejudice the accused or the prosecutor as aforesaid, the Court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary. (5) If the offence stated in the altered or added charge is one for the prosecution of which previous sanction is necessary, the case shall not be proceeded with until such sanction is obtained, unless sanction has been already obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as those on which the altered or added charge is founded.”

The Court noted that while Section 216 of the CrPC grants broad powers to alter charges, it does not specify the circumstances under which such alterations should be made. The Court also observed that such alterations are usually made when the court finds the charge to be defective or when new evidence emerges during the trial.

Arguments

The appellants argued that the trial court added the charge under Section 302 of the IPC solely based on the Supreme Court’s direction in Rajbir’s case, without considering the evidence. They contended that the trial court had already found no evidence to support a murder charge. The High Court’s reliance on the autopsy report was also challenged.

The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the trial court was correct in adding the charge under Section 302 of the IPC, given the Supreme Court’s direction in Rajbir’s case. The High Court also supported the decision by pointing out that the autopsy report suggested a homicidal death.

The Supreme Court observed that the trial court did not base its decision on any error or omission in the original charge. The addition of a charge under Section 302 of the IPC was solely due to the direction in Rajbir’s case. The High Court also considered itself bound by the direction in Rajbir’s case. However, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court went further to suggest that the autopsy surgeon’s report was prima facie evidence to show that the offence was homicidal in nature.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the trial court was justified in framing a charge under Section 302 of the IPC against the appellants.
2. Whether the High Court was justified in affirming that order of the trial court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Rajbir @ Raju & Anr. v. State of Haryana AIR 2011 SC 568 (Supreme Court of India): This case directed trial courts to add Section 302 IPC to charges under Section 304B IPC.
• Satya Narayan Tiwari @ Jolly & Anr. v. State of U.P. (2010) 13 SCC 689 (Supreme Court of India): This case was relied upon in Rajbir’s case.
• Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: This section empowers the court to alter or add to any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced.
• Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2004) 5 SCC 347 (Supreme Court of India): This case recognizes the principle that a trial court can alter or add a charge based on broad probabilities of the case.
• Ishwarchand Amichand Govadia and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2006) 10 SCC 322 (Supreme Court of India): This case is to the same effect as Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat and Ors..
• Rajendra Singh Sethia v. State and Ors. 1989 Cri.L.J. 255 (Calcutta High Court): This case is to the same effect as Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat and Ors..
• Shiv Nandan and Ors. v. State of U.P. 2005 Cri. L.J 3047 (Allahabad High Court): This case is to the same effect as Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat and Ors..

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the trial court’s decision to add a charge under Section 302 of the IPC was incorrect. The Court emphasized that the direction in Rajbir’s case was not meant to be applied mechanically. The Court clarified that a charge under Section 302 of the IPC should only be added if the evidence permits. The Court also stated that the charge under Section 304B of the IPC is not a substitute for a charge of murder under Section 302 of the IPC. The Court observed that the ingredients of the two offenses are different, thereby demanding appreciation of evidence from the perspective relevant to such ingredients.

The Supreme Court further noted that the High Court also erred in upholding the trial court’s decision. The High Court should have remitted the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration. The Supreme Court set aside the orders of both the trial court and the High Court.

Treatment of Submissions and Authorities

Authorities:

The Supreme Court clarified that the direction in Rajbir @ Raju & Anr. v. State of Haryana [AIR 2011 SC 568]* was not meant to be followed mechanically. The Court stated that the trial court should frame a charge under Section 302 of the IPC only if the evidence permits. The Court also relied on Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat and Ors. [(2004) 5 SCC 347]*, Ishwarchand Amichand Govadia and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. [(2006) 10 SCC 322]*, Rajendra Singh Sethia v. State and Ors. [1989 Cri.L.J. 255]*, and Shiv Nandan and Ors. v. State of U.P. [2005 Cri. L.J 3047]* to state that a trial court can alter or add a charge based on broad probabilities of the case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure that charges are framed based on evidence and not on a mechanical application of a previous order. The Court emphasized the importance of judicial discretion and the need for a careful evaluation of evidence before framing charges. The Court was also concerned that the trial court had not independently assessed the evidence and had merely followed the direction in Rajbir’s case. The Court also noted that the High Court had also erred by not remitting the matter back to the trial court.

Logical Reasoning

The court considered the alternative interpretation that the direction in Rajbir’s case was mandatory, but rejected it. The court emphasized that the direction was not meant to be followed mechanically. The court also considered the argument that the autopsy report suggested a homicidal death, but noted that the High Court should have remitted the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration.

The Supreme Court’s decision was that the orders passed by the trial court and the High Court were untenable and needed to be set aside. The Court remitted the matter back to the trial court for a fresh order. The Court held that the trial court should consider the evidence adduced before it and determine if there is any room for framing a charge under Section 302 of the IPC.

The Supreme Court stated:

“The direction was not meant to be followed mechanically and without due regard to the nature of the evidence available in the case.”

“If there is evidence whether direct or circumstantial to prima facie support a charge under Section 302 IPC the trial Court can and indeed ought to frame a charge of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC, which would then be the main charge and not an alternative charge as is erroneously assumed in some quarters.”

“The trial Court in that view of the matter acted mechanically for it framed an additional charge under Section 302 IPC without adverting to the evidence adduced in the case and simply on the basis of the direction issued in Rajbir’s case (supra).”

The Court did not have a dissenting opinion, and the judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Trial courts cannot automatically add a murder charge (Section 302 IPC) in every dowry death case (Section 304B IPC).
• ✓ Adding a murder charge requires a careful review of evidence.
• ✓ The direction in Rajbir’s case was not meant to be followed mechanically.
• ✓ The charge under Section 304B of the IPC is not a substitute for a charge of murder under Section 302 of the IPC.
• ✓ Trial courts must exercise judicial discretion and independently assess the evidence before framing charges.

This judgment clarifies the procedure for framing charges in dowry death cases, ensuring that charges are based on evidence and not on a mechanical application of previous orders. This decision emphasizes the importance of judicial discretion and the need for a careful evaluation of evidence before framing charges. This will prevent the misuse of Section 302 of the IPC in cases where there is no evidence to support a murder charge.

Directions

The Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the trial court for a fresh order. The trial court was directed to consider the evidence adduced before it and determine if there is any room for framing a charge under Section 302 of the IPC.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a trial court cannot mechanically add a charge under Section 302 of the IPC in every case under Section 304B of the IPC. The court clarified that the direction in Rajbir’s case was not meant to be followed mechanically and that the trial court must independently assess the evidence before framing a charge under Section 302 of the IPC. This judgment clarifies the previous position of law, which was being interpreted as a mandatory direction to add a charge under Section 302 of the IPC in every case under Section 304B of the IPC.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of the trial court and the High Court, clarifying that a charge under Section 302 of the IPC cannot be added mechanically in every dowry death case. The Court emphasized that the trial court must exercise judicial discretion and independently assess the evidence before framing a charge under Section 302 of the IPC. The matter was remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration.