This case interpretation/case summary is written by Mr. Sonu Choudhary, a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to niyamskanoon09@gmail.com.
Facts
An FIR was registered by the Motihari Town Police Station on 03.08.2005 against the appellants Mohan Singh, Laxmi Singh and others for the murder of the father (Sureshwar Jha) and brother (Anil Kumar Jha) of the informant Vikas Kumar Jha.
The informant in its fardbeyan disclosed that the appellants were known to his family and had made several attempts to extort money from his family earlier by threatening them for which a complaint had been also filed with the police. The informant alleged that the appellants had killed his brother and father for not having paid the extortion money.
Accordingly, the charges were framed for the murder of the deceased and criminal conspiracy under S.120B and extortion under S.387 of the IPC.
Case History
The Session Court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment for criminal conspiracy to murder under S.120B, IPC and for extortion (S.387)
The High Court upheld the conviction order of the Session Court.
There this appeal was preferred here in the Supreme Court.
Contentions of the Appellant's Council
The charges framed nowhere mentioned the commission of the offence of murder punishable under S.302 of the IPC, it only mentioned the offence committed is punishable under S.120B for which punishment of life imprisonment can not be made.
Issue
Can the conviction of murder be set aside for the appellant on the ground that the specific section is not mentioned in the charges framed?
Ratio Decidendi
The purpose of a framing of charge is to give information to the accused of the nature of the accusation which he will meet in the course of a trial.
Section 214 of the CrPC says the words used to describe an offence shall be deemed to have been used in the sense attached to them by the law.
In K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao (2003), the Court observed that mere omission in framing of charges does not disable the criminal court from convicting the accused for the offence which has been proved on the evidence on record. Section 221 and Section 215 of CRPC, 1973 safeguards this power.
In the Dalbir Singh v. State of U.P., 2004, the Court observed that Section 464 CrPC, 1973 empowers the revisional Court to convict an accused for an offence which has not been charged unless there occurs a failure of justice. Also in State of UP v. Paras Nath Singh (2009), the Court observed that the burden to prove the failure of justice lies on the accused.
In the Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v State of AP (2009), the Court observed that a conviction can be sustained even if the particular section is not mentioned in the charge if the ingredients of the section charged are obvious and implicit.
Decision
The appeal was dismissed, as the charge clearly mentioned that the accused had committed the murder of Anil Jha although the section for murder was not mentioned in the charge, the accused will be convicted.
