Supreme Court clarifies the stage for considering Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code in criminal trials: Chandi Puliya vs. State of West Bengal (2022) INSC 1234 (12 December 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 12 December 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 1234
Judges: M.R. Shah, J., C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can an accused person be tried again for murder after being acquitted of kidnapping based on the same set of facts? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case, clarifying the procedural stage at which the bar against double jeopardy, as enshrined in Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), should be considered. This judgment clarifies the importance of considering a discharge application under Section 227 of the CrPC before framing charges under Section 228 of the CrPC, particularly when the accused claims the bar of Section 300 CrPC. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar.

Case Background

The appellant, Chandi Puliya, was initially tried and acquitted in 2010 for offences including kidnapping under Sections 148, 149, 448, 364 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in connection with FIR No. 61/2002. The case related to the alleged kidnapping of Ajay Acharya.

In 2011, a second FIR was filed against the appellant and others, alleging that they had caused the death of Ajay Acharya. This second FIR was lodged after the discovery of a skeleton, which was identified as belonging to Ajay Acharya 11 years after the initial incident. The appellant was charged under Section 302 of the IPC (murder).

The appellant sought to quash the second FIR, but the High Court directed him to raise all points of law at the time of framing of charge. The Supreme Court upheld this direction. Subsequently, the appellant filed a discharge application under Section 227 read with Section 300(1) of the CrPC, arguing that he could not be tried again for murder based on the same facts for which he was acquitted for kidnapping. The trial court dismissed this application stating that such an objection could be raised at the stage of framing of charge. The High Court confirmed the trial court’s order, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially sought to quash the second FIR through a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, which was dismissed by the High Court. The High Court granted the appellant the liberty to raise all legal points during the framing of charges. The appellant then filed a discharge application under Section 227 read with Section 300(1) of the CrPC. The trial court dismissed this application, stating that the objection could be raised at the stage of framing of charge. The High Court upheld the trial court’s order.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the CrPC, specifically:

• Section 227 of the CrPC: This section deals with the discharge of an accused. It states, “If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.”
• Section 228 of the CrPC: This section deals with the framing of charges. It states that if, after considering the case, the judge believes there is sufficient ground to presume that the accused has committed an offence, they shall frame a charge.
• Section 300(1) of the CrPC: This section embodies the principle of double jeopardy, stating, “A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

The appellant, represented by Shri Siddhartha Dave, argued that:

• The stage of discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC is prior to the framing of charges under Section 228 of the CrPC. Therefore, the court should consider the application under Section 300 of the CrPC at the stage of discharge.
• Once charges are framed, the accused cannot seek discharge, as held in Ratilal Bhanji Mithani v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2 SCC 179.
• The appellant was acquitted of kidnapping, and the second FIR for murder is based on the same facts. This is an attempt to circumvent the bar under Section 300(1) of the CrPC.
• Section 300 of the CrPC bars a second trial on the same facts even for a different offence, as held in State v. Nalini, (1999) 5 SCC 253.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The respondent, represented by Shri Sunil Fernandes, argued that:

• The acquittal in the first FIR is under appeal before the High Court.
• The first FIR dealt with kidnapping, whereas the second FIR deals with murder. The appellant was not tried for murder in the first FIR.
• The plea under Section 300 CrPC was already considered and rejected by the High Court when it refused to quash the second FIR.
• The trial court correctly stated that the appellant could raise the points under Section 300 CrPC at the time of framing of charge.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the application under Section 300(1) of the CrPC should be considered at the stage of discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC, which is prior to the framing of charge under Section 228 of the CrPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in not considering the application under Section 300(1) of the CrPC at the stage of discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC. The court emphasized that the stage of discharge is prior to the framing of charges. The court quashed the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter to the trial court to consider the plea of the accused on the applicability of Section 300(1) of the CrPC at the discharge stage.

The Court observed that the trial court should first consider the discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and the plea under Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. If the objection under Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. is overruled and the court is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for framing of charge against the accused, then it may proceed to frame the charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The court relied on the following authorities:

• Ratilal Bhanji Mithani v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2 SCC 179: The Court cited this case to emphasize that once charges are framed, the accused is disentitled from praying for discharge.
• State v. Nalini, (1999) 5 SCC 253: The Court referred to this case to support the principle that Section 300 CrPC bars a second trial on the same facts even for a different offence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to adhere to the procedural safeguards provided under the CrPC. The Court emphasized the importance of considering the discharge application under Section 227 of the CrPC before framing charges under Section 228 of the CrPC. The Court noted that the bar under Section 300(1) of the CrPC should be considered at the stage of discharge, as the accused cannot seek discharge once the charges are framed. The Court also relied on the principle of double jeopardy, as enshrined in Section 300(1) of the CrPC, which protects an accused from being tried again for the same offence or on the same facts for any other offence.

The court’s reasoning was primarily focused on the legal procedure and interpretation of the CrPC provisions. The factual aspects of the case were considered to a lesser extent, as the court mainly focused on the procedural aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning was based on the sequential nature of the criminal procedure. The court emphasized that the discharge application under Section 227 CrPC must be considered before the framing of charges under Section 228 CrPC. The court rejected the argument that the plea under Section 300 CrPC could be considered at the stage of framing of charge.

The court did not delve into the merits of the case, but focused on the procedural aspects. The court did not consider any alternative interpretations of the law, but focused on the plain language of the CrPC.

The Supreme Court’s decision was clear and concise. The court held that the trial court erred in not considering the application under Section 300(1) of the CrPC at the stage of discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC. The court emphasized that the stage of discharge is prior to the framing of charges. The court quashed the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter to the trial court to consider the plea of the accused on the applicability of Section 300(1) of the CrPC at the discharge stage.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “As per Section 228 Cr.P.C. only thereafter and if, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, the trial Court shall frame the charge.”
• “Under the circumstances, the learned trial Court has erred in not considering the application under Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. at the time of framing of charge and/or prior to framing of the charge.”
• “The matter is remitted to the learned trial Court to consider the plea of the accused on applicability of Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. at the stage of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C., which is a stage prior to framing of the charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C.”

There were no majority or minority opinions in this case. The bench was unanimous in its decision.

Key Takeaways

• The application under Section 300(1) of the CrPC, which deals with the principle of double jeopardy, must be considered at the stage of discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC, which is before the framing of charges under Section 228 of the CrPC.
• Once charges are framed, the accused is generally disentitled from praying for discharge.
• Trial courts must ensure that all procedural safeguards are followed before framing charges against an accused person.

This judgment has significant implications for criminal trials in India. It clarifies the procedural stage at which the bar against double jeopardy must be considered. This will ensure that accused persons are not subjected to multiple trials based on the same facts.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the trial court to consider the application under Section 300(1) CrPC along with the application for discharge under Section 227 CrPC and to complete the exercise within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the application under Section 300(1) of the CrPC must be considered at the stage of discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC, which is prior to the framing of charges under Section 228 of the CrPC. This clarifies the procedural aspect of criminal trials and reinforces the principle of double jeopardy. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this judgment clarifies the procedural stage at which the bar against double jeopardy must be considered.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Chandi Puliya vs. State of West Bengal clarifies the correct procedural stage for considering the bar against double jeopardy under Section 300(1) of the CrPC. The Court emphasized that this consideration must occur at the discharge stage under Section 227 of the CrPC, before framing charges under Section 228 of the CrPC. This ruling ensures that accused persons are not subjected to multiple trials based on the same facts, reinforcing the principles of fairness and justice in the Indian legal system.