Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 216 – Framing of Additional charges – Scope of the power – Held: s. 216 provides to the Court exclusive and wide ranging power to change or alter any charge – Court can exercise the power to add charges at any stage before the judgment is pronounced – The test to be adopted by the Court is that the material brought on record needs to have direct nexus with the ingredients of the alleged offence – The Court must exercise such power judiciously and ensure that no prejudice is caused to the accused – In the facts of the present case, High Court rightly framed additional charges. Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 406 and 420 – Prosecution u/s. 498A of IPC and ss. 3 and
4 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Application for framing additional charges u/s. 406 and 420 IPC – Denied by trial court – High Court directed framing of additional charges – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: There exists sufficient material on record that shows a connection or link with the ingredients of offences u/ss. 406 and
420 – High Court has spelled out the reasons that have necessitated the addition of the charge, hence need no interference. Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 216 of Cr.P.C. provides the court an exclusive and wide-ranging power to change or alter any charge. The use of the words “at any time before judgment is pronounced” in Sub-Section (1) empowers the court to exercise its powers of altering or adding charges even after the completion of evidence, arguments and reserving of the judgment. The alteration or addition of a charge may be done if in the opinion of the court there was an omission in the framing of charge or if upon prima facie examination of the material brought on record, it leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The test to be adopted by the court while deciding upon an addition or alteration of a charge is that the material brought on record needs to have a direct link or nexus with the ingredients of the alleged offence. Addition of a charge merely commences the trial for the additional charges, whereupon, based on the evidence, it is to be determined whether the accused may be convicted for the additional charges. The court must exercise its powers under Section 216 judiciously and ensure that no prejudice is caused to the accused and that he is allowed to have a fair trial. The only constraint on the court’s power is the prejudice likely to be caused to the accused by the addition or alteration of charges. Sub-Section
(4) accordingly prescribes the approach to be adopted by the courts where prejudice may be caused. Section 217 of CrPC deals with recalling of witnesses when the charge is altered or added by the court after commencement of the trial. [Paras 15 and 20][1125-F; 1128-G; 1129-A-C]
2.1. In the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent before this Court, depositions of PW 1 (LW 1), PW 5 (LW 12) and PW 6 (LW 13) and their cross-examination have been annexed. The material on record supports the possibility that in April 2006, the appellant demanded Rs 5,00,000/- from PW 1, who is the complainant, in order to secure a doctor’s job for the complainant’s daughter in the United Kingdom. According to PW 1, he borrowed the amount from PW 5 (brother-in-law of PW 1) and paid it to the appellant in the presence of PW 5 and PW 6 (friend of PW 1). Without pronouncing on the probative value of such evidence, there exists sufficient material on record that shows a connection or link with the ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, and the charges sought to be added. Therefore, the test adopted by the High Court is correct. [Para 23][1131-A-C]
2.2. The veracity of the depositions made by the witnesses is a question of trial and need not be determined at the time of framing of charge. Appreciation of evidence on merit is to be done by the court only after the charges have been framed and the trial has commenced. However, for the purpose of framing of charge, the court needs to prima facie determine that there exists sufficient material for the commencement of trial. The High Court has relied upon the materials on record and concluded that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC are attracted. The High Court has spelt out the reasons that have necessitated the addition of the charge and hence, the impugned order does not warrant any interference. [Para 24] [1131-D-E]
P Kartikalakshmi v. Sri Ganesh (2017) 3 SCC 347; Anant Prakash Sinha v. State of Haryana (2016) 6 SCC 105; CBI v. Karimullah Osan Khan (2014) 11 SCC 538 : [2014] 3 SCR 588; Jasvinder Saini v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) (2013) 7 SCC 256 : [2013] 7 SCR 340 – relied on.
Onkar Nath Mishra v. The State (2008) 2 SCC 561 : [2007] 13 SCR 716; Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168 : [2000] 2 SCR 859; Sajjan Kumar v Central Bureau of Investigation (2010)
9 SCC 368 : [2010] 11 SCR 669 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.