Supreme Court quashes conviction due to faulty charge and Section 313 CrPC violation: Kalicharan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 14 December 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 1756

Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., Abhay S. Oka, J.

Can a conviction be upheld if the charges were not properly framed and the accused were not given a fair chance to explain the circumstances against them? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, highlighting the importance of procedural fairness in the justice system. The court examined the implications of failing to frame a proper charge under Section 213 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and the consequences of not presenting material evidence to the accused during their examination under Section 313 of the CrPC. This case underscores the necessity of adhering to due process to ensure a just outcome. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Abhay S. Oka, with the opinion authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on December 6, 2000, at approximately 1:30 PM. The informant, Atar Singh (PW-1), was transporting soil in his bullock cart when he was confronted by Kalicharan (accused no.1) and his sons, Yaad Prakash (accused no.2) and Diwan Singh (accused no.3). They stopped him, leading to an argument. The three accused then went to their house and returned with weapons. Bangali (another accused) had a razor, Kalicharan had a lathi, Yaad Prakash had a country-made pistol, and Diwan Singh and Shakuntala Devi (accused no.4, wife of accused no.1 and mother of accused nos. 2 and 3) had axes. Yaad Prakash allegedly fired shots from his pistol, and Harpal Singh, the deceased, fell. The prosecution’s case was that Harpal Singh was then attacked with sharp weapons by the other accused, leading to his death. During the same incident, Rani, the sister of PW-1, was attacked by Bangali and also died. Several other individuals who tried to intervene were also injured. The prosecution relied on the testimonies of eye-witnesses Atar Singh (PW-1) and Malkhan Singh (PW-2) and the medical evidence.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily concerns the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines “unlawful assembly” as an assembly of five or more persons with a common unlawful object.
• Section 148 of the IPC: Deals with rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149 of the IPC: Addresses the liability of members of an unlawful assembly for offenses committed in furtherance of their common object.
• Section 302 of the IPC: Defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 307 of the IPC: Defines the punishment for attempt to murder.
• Section 212 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Specifies the particulars required in a charge, including time, place, and the person against whom the offense was committed. “(1) The charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence, and the person (if any) against whom, or the thing (if any) in respect of which, it was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged.”
• Section 213 of the CrPC: Mandates that the charge must include particulars of the manner in which the offense was committed when the details in Sections 211 and 212 are not sufficient. “When the nature of the case is such that the particulars mentioned in sections 211 and 212 do not give the accused sufficient notice of the matter with which he is charged, the charge shall also contain such particulars of the manner in which the alleged offence was committed as will be sufficient for that purpose.”
• Section 215 of the CrPC: States that errors in the charge are not material unless they mislead the accused and cause a failure of justice. “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 has occasioned a failure of justice.”
• Section 313 of the CrPC: Requires the court to examine the accused on the circumstances appearing in the evidence against them, to enable the accused to explain those circumstances. “(1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court— (b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case:”
• Section 464 of the CrPC: Specifies that a finding, sentence, or order by a competent court shall not be deemed invalid due to errors in the charge unless a failure of justice has occurred. “(1) No finding, sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Submissions (Kalicharan & Ors.):

• The appellants argued that since one of the five accused (Diwan Singh) was acquitted, the charge of unlawful assembly under Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC could not stand, as an unlawful assembly requires five or more persons.
• The charge framed against the accused stated that Harpal Singh died due to bullet injuries from the firearm of accused no.2, but the evidence showed that Harpal Singh died from injuries caused by sharp weapons.
• The appellants contended that they were misled by the faulty charge, which did not reflect the actual prosecution case.
• During the recording of statements under Section 313 of the CrPC, the material circumstance that Harpal Singh was attacked with sharp weapons was not presented to the accused. Instead, they were asked about the bullet injuries, which was not the cause of death as per the evidence.
• The appellants argued that the failure to frame a proper charge and to put material circumstances to them during their statements under Section 313 of the CrPC caused serious prejudice, warranting their acquittal.
• The appellants submitted that they have been in custody since 19th August 2019.

Respondent’s Submissions (State of Uttar Pradesh):

• The State argued that the accused were aware of the prosecution’s case, as the defense had cross-examined the prosecution witnesses on the fact that Harpal Singh died due to the assault with sharp weapons.
• The State contended that the failure to frame a proper charge did not cause any prejudice since the accused were aware of the prosecution’s case through the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2.
• The State asserted that the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 was consistent with the injuries found on the deceased and injured persons.
• The State submitted that there was no need for interference as the courts had rightly convicted the accused based on the evidence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether there was an omission to frame a proper charge in accordance with Section 213 of the CrPC?
2. What is the consequence of the failure of the Trial Judge to put material circumstances to the accused in their statements under Section 313 of the CrPC?
3. Whether the charge under Sections 148 and 149 of IPC can be sustained?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court explained the definition of unlawful assembly as provided in Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code.
• The Court explained the offense of rioting with a deadly weapon as provided in Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code.
• The Court explained the liability of members of an unlawful assembly for offenses committed in furtherance of their common object as provided in Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
• The Court explained the particulars required in a charge as provided in Section 212 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• The Court explained the mandate that the charge must include particulars of the manner in which the offense was committed as provided in Section 213 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• The Court explained that errors in the charge are not material unless they mislead the accused and cause a failure of justice as provided in Section 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• The Court explained the requirement to examine the accused on the circumstances appearing in the evidence against them as provided in Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• The Court explained that a finding, sentence, or order by a competent court shall not be deemed invalid due to errors in the charge unless a failure of justice has occurred as provided in Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• The Court relied upon the judgment in Jai Dev v. State of Punjab [ (1963) 3 SCR 489] to emphasize the importance of putting all relevant circumstances to the accused during examination under Section 313 CrPC.
• The Court relied upon the judgment in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] to hold that circumstances not put to the accused in their examination under Section 313 must be excluded from consideration.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Procedural Fairness: The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and ensuring that the accused are given a fair opportunity to defend themselves.
• Proper Charge: The Court stressed that the charge must accurately reflect the prosecution’s case and provide sufficient details about the manner in which the offense was committed.
• Section 313 of CrPC Compliance: The Court highlighted that the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC is not a mere formality but a crucial step to enable the accused to explain the circumstances against them.
• Prejudice to the Accused: The Court found that the failure to frame a proper charge and to put material circumstances to the accused during their statements under Section 313 of the CrPC caused serious prejudice, leading to a failure of justice.
• Unlawful Assembly: The Court noted that the charge of unlawful assembly could not be sustained as the number of accused was reduced to four, which is less than the required five under Section 141 of the IPC.

Fact:Law Ratio Explanation: The court’s decision was heavily influenced by legal considerations (70%), such as the interpretation of procedural laws and precedents, while the factual aspects of the case (30%) were considered in light of the legal framework.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Importance of Proper Charge: The charge must accurately reflect the prosecution’s case and include all necessary details to enable the accused to understand the accusations.
• Compliance with Section 313 CrPC: The examination of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC is a critical step and must include all material circumstances appearing in the evidence against them.
• Prejudice to the Accused: Any procedural lapse that causes prejudice to the accused can lead to the quashing of the conviction.
• Unlawful Assembly: The charge of unlawful assembly requires an assembly of five or more persons, and if the number falls below five, the charge cannot be sustained.
• Custody Period: The Court considered the custody period of the accused while deciding not to remand the case for retrial.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• The impugned judgments of the Sessions Court and the High Court were set aside to the extent that accused no.1 Kalicharan, accused no.2 Yaad Prakash, and accused no.4 Smt. Shakuntala Devi were convicted.
• Accused nos. 1, 2, and 4 were to be set at liberty unless they were required to be detained in connection with any other offense.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi of this case is that the failure to frame a proper charge under Section 213 of the CrPC, coupled with the failure to put material circumstances to the accused during their examination under Section 313 of the CrPC, causes serious prejudice to the accused, leading to a failure of justice. This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural fairness and the necessity of adhering to the principles of natural justice in criminal trials.

Change in Law: This judgment does not introduce a new legal principle but reaffirms the existing legal principles regarding the importance of proper charges and compliance with Section 313 of the CrPC. It emphasizes that these procedural requirements are not mere formalities but are crucial for ensuring a fair trial. The Court also clarified that the charge of unlawful assembly cannot be sustained if the number of accused is less than five.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Kalicharan & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh is a significant reminder of the importance of procedural fairness in criminal trials. The Court quashed the conviction of the accused due to a faulty charge, which did not reflect the actual prosecution case, and a violation of Section 313 of the CrPC, where material circumstances were not put to the accused. The Court held that these procedural lapses caused serious prejudice to the accused, leading to a failure of justice. The judgment underscores that the principles of natural justice and due process must be strictly adhered to in order to ensure a fair trial and just outcome.