LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Trial Court can frame additional charges, specifically under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, after a charge sheet has been filed.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Osama Aziz and Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
[Judgment Date]: April 27, 2018
Date of the Judgment: April 27, 2018
Citation: 2018 INSC 352
Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
Can a trial court add charges to a case after the police have already filed a charge sheet? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case where the complainants felt that the police had not included all the appropriate charges. The court clarified the powers of the trial court to include additional charges even after the charge sheet has been filed. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, and Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud.
Case Background
The case originated from an incident where the appellants were assaulted in a courtroom. The appellants had a prior case against some individuals. While present in court for a bail hearing, they were attacked. The police filed a charge sheet against three individuals under Sections 147, 323, 504, and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellants believed that the charge sheet did not include all the relevant sections, specifically Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (attempt to murder), and that other individuals involved in the assault had not been charged.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009 | A false report was lodged against the petitioner under Sections 147, 323, 336, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Chowk, district Lucknow. |
| 2010 | The petitioner was assaulted in the courtroom while in judicial custody. |
| 2010 | Crime No. 419 of 2010 was registered at P.S. Wazirganj, Lucknow, regarding the assault. |
| January 10, 2013 | The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, passed an interlocutory order, rejecting some of the reliefs claimed by the appellants. |
| March 19, 2013 | The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, disposed of the petition. |
| April 27, 2018 | The Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellants filed a petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, seeking several reliefs, including the inclusion of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in the charge sheet, and the framing of charges against other individuals. The High Court initially passed an interlocutory order on January 10, 2013, directing the appellants to approach the Trial Court for reliefs (i), (ii), and (iii). The High Court finally disposed of the petition on March 19, 2013, addressing the remaining reliefs. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court against both the orders of the High Court.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of the powers of a Trial Court in criminal proceedings, specifically concerning the framing of charges under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The relevant provisions include:
- Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the offense of attempt to murder. The appellants sought the inclusion of this charge against the accused.
- Sections 147, 323, 504 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: These sections relate to rioting, voluntarily causing hurt, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace, and assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, respectively. These were the sections under which the initial charge sheet was filed.
- Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This provision allows the court to summon any person who appears to be guilty of an offense during the course of any inquiry or trial.
Arguments
The appellants argued that the High Court’s observations would hinder their pursuit of justice in the criminal case. They contended that the charge sheet filed by the police was incomplete and did not include all relevant sections and accused persons. The appellants specifically wanted the inclusion of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the prosecution of other individuals involved in the assault. They also argued that the investigation was flawed because the charge sheet was filed against only three persons under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which requires a minimum of five persons. The High Court had noted that the appellants could raise their grievances before the Trial Court. The appellants felt that the High Court’s observation would create an impediment for the Trial Court to consider their plea.
The State, represented by the Additional Government Advocate (AGA), submitted that the police had already filed a charge sheet and that the prayers of the appellants to interfere in the investigation had become infructuous. The State argued that the investigation had revealed that the offense was committed by several persons, but the identity of all the accused could not be ascertained, leading to a charge sheet against only three identified individuals.
| Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ Submission |
|
| State’s Submission |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues but addressed the core concern of whether the High Court’s observations would impede the Trial Court from considering the appellants’ grievances regarding the inclusion of additional charges and accused persons.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court’s observations would impede the Trial Court from considering the appellants’ grievances? | The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court’s observations would not hinder the Trial Court from considering the appellants’ grievances. The Trial Court is free to frame additional charges, including under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and to proceed against other individuals if the evidence warrants it. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in its judgment. However, it did refer to the following legal provisions:
- Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Relating to attempt to murder.
- Sections 147, 323, 504, and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Relating to rioting, voluntarily causing hurt, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace, and assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, respectively.
- Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Power of the court to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offense.
| Authority | How it was Considered |
|---|---|
| Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | The Court clarified that the Trial Court has the power to include this charge if the material on record justifies it. |
| Sections 147, 323, 504, and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | The Court acknowledged that these were the sections under which the initial charge sheet was filed. |
| Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | The Court noted that the Trial Court could use this provision to summon additional accused if the evidence warrants it. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal, clarifying that the High Court’s observations would not impede the Trial Court’s ability to consider the appellants’ grievances. The Court reiterated that the Trial Court is empowered to frame charges under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, if the evidence justifies it, and to proceed against other individuals who appear to be guilty. The Supreme Court also directed that the trial be concluded expeditiously.
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| The appellants’ submission that the charge sheet should include Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. | The Court held that the Trial Court has the power to consider this and frame the charge if the evidence warrants it. |
| The appellants’ submission that other relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or other Acts should be imposed against the accused. | The Court held that the Trial Court has the power to consider this and frame appropriate charges if the evidence warrants it. |
| The appellants’ submission that proper charges should be framed against Jameeruddin Siddiqui (ex-ADJ). | The Court held that the Trial Court has the power to consider this and frame appropriate charges if the evidence warrants it. |
| The appellants’ submission that cognizance should be taken against the Emergency Medical Officer of Adarsh Karavas on 24/06/2010. | The Court did not give any specific direction on this point, leaving it to the Trial Court to decide as per law. |
| The appellants’ submission that Para 8 of the Counter Affidavit should be used to discover all the accused. | The Court did not give any specific direction on this point, leaving it to the Trial Court to decide as per law. |
| The appellants’ submission that reasonable time should be granted for the completion of the investigation. | The Court did not give any specific direction on this point, noting that the charge sheet had already been filed. |
| The State’s submission that the police had already filed a charge sheet. | The Court acknowledged this but clarified that the Trial Court’s powers are not limited by the charge sheet. |
| The State’s submission that the prayers to interfere in the investigation had become infructuous. | The Court agreed that the investigation was complete, but clarified that the Trial Court could still take cognizance of additional offenses and accused. |
| The State’s submission that the investigation revealed that the offense was committed by several persons, but the identity of all the accused could not be ascertained. | The Court acknowledged this but clarified that the Trial Court could still take cognizance of additional accused persons if the evidence warrants it. |
| Authority | How the Court Viewed the Authority |
|---|---|
| Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | The Court clarified that the Trial Court has the power to include this charge if the material on record justifies it. |
| Sections 147, 323, 504, and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | The Court acknowledged that these were the sections under which the initial charge sheet was filed, but clarified that the Trial Court could add more charges. |
| Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | The Court noted that the Trial Court could use this provision to summon additional accused if the evidence warrants it. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure that the Trial Court’s powers are not curtailed by the initial charge sheet filed by the police. The Court emphasized that the Trial Court has the authority to frame additional charges and summon additional accused persons if the evidence presented before it warrants such actions. The Court was also concerned about the seriousness of the allegations, particularly the assault in a courtroom, and the need to ensure that all aspects of the matter are considered by the Trial Court.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Ensuring Trial Court’s Powers | 40% |
| Seriousness of Allegations | 30% |
| Need for Thorough Consideration | 30% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal principle that the Trial Court has the power to frame charges based on the evidence before it, regardless of the charges framed in the charge sheet. The Court also considered the factual aspects of the case, such as the assault in the courtroom, but the legal considerations weighed more heavily in its decision.
Logical Reasoning
Initial Charge Sheet Filed
Police file charge sheet with limited charges and accused.
Appellants’ Grievance
Appellants feel charges are insufficient and some accused are missing.
High Court’s Observation
High Court directs appellants to approach Trial Court.
Supreme Court’s Clarification
Trial Court is not bound by initial charge sheet and can frame additional charges and summon additional accused if evidence warrants.
Key Takeaways
- The Trial Court is not bound by the charges framed in the initial charge sheet filed by the police.
- The Trial Court has the power to frame additional charges, including under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, if the evidence warrants it.
- The Trial Court can summon additional accused persons under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if they appear to be guilty of an offense.
- The observations made by the High Court will not impede the Trial Court from considering the appellants’ grievances.
- The trial in Crime No. 419 of 2010 should be concluded expeditiously.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the trial of Crime No. 419 of 2010 should be concluded expeditiously. The Court also directed that a copy of its order be brought to the notice of the Trial Court by the Public Prosecutor within two weeks.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Trial Court’s powers to frame charges and summon accused persons are not limited by the initial charge sheet filed by the police. This judgment reinforces the principle that the Trial Court has the authority to ensure a fair and complete trial, based on the evidence presented before it. This decision clarifies the extent of the Trial Court’s powers, ensuring that justice is not hindered by incomplete investigations or charge sheets.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Osama Aziz vs. State of Uttar Pradesh clarifies that the Trial Court has the authority to frame additional charges and summon additional accused persons, regardless of the initial charge sheet filed by the police. This ruling ensures that the Trial Court can conduct a comprehensive trial based on the available evidence, promoting a fair and just legal process.