2011 Supreme(SC) 899

2011 (6) Supreme 645
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. Panchal and H.L. Gokhale, JJ.
Santosh Kumari — Appellant
versus
State of J & K & Others — Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos.1660-1662 of 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos. 751-753 of 2011)
Decided on : 13-9-2011

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. The object of the charge is to give the accused notice of the matter he is charged with and does not touch jurisdiction. If, therefore, the necessary information is conveyed to him in other ways and there is no prejudice, the framing of the charge is not invalidated.
2. It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that the accused should be informed with certainty and accuracy the exact nature of the charge brought against him.

Headnote:Ranbir Penal Code,1860- Sections 302, 109, 147, 148, 149 -Respondents. 3 to 8 formed an lawful assembly , common object of which was to murder deceased and in prosecution of common object of the said assembly, respondents Nos. 3 to 8 mounted a murderous assault on deceased , husband of appellant - Sessions Judge, framed necessary charge against each accused -Revision-Respondent No. 8, preferred a petition to quash order passed by trial court framing charges against him - High Court set aside order passed by trial court framing charge against respondent Nos. 3 to 8 and remanded the case to the trial court to consider it in terms of Sections 267, 268 and 269 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1989-Appeals – Held This was not a case of mere mention of the sections of law in the charge or the order of framing charge- Hence, High Court was not justified in observing that mere mention of the sections of the law in the charge was likely to prejudice the accused in his trial and that he would be disabled to know the exact charge he had to face- All necessary particulars were stated by trial court while framing charge- The remand of the case to trial court for considering the case afresh on the point of charge was not warranted at all, as nothing to suggest or indicate even remotely that accused had or would have been misled by any error or omission in the Charge –Impugned order of High Court set aside-Appeals allowed (Paras 10 to 12)

        Ranbir Penal Code,1860- Sections 302, 109, 147, 148, 149 –Offence of murder-Bail Application- Trial court rejected Bail Application filed by accused -High Court directed release of all accused persons except respondent No.3 –Appeals-Held order admitting accused except accused S to interim bail was not warranted nor justified at all- Before granting interim bail to accused High Court could not have afforded to ignore the testimony of eye witnesses including that of appellant who was wife of the deceased, merely because deceased had received only one injury nor accused could have been accorded the benefit of temporary bail on the spacious plea that they were facing trial over a period of three years- The fact that accused are involved in commission of a heinous crime like murder which entails death or life imprisonment as punishment ought to have been taken into consideration before releasing the accused on interim bail- The trial court after having considered gravity of offence and apprehension on part of prosecution that accused would tamper with the evidence in event of their release on bail had rightly refused to enlarge accused on bail- Moreover, complaint filed by V that he and K who was one of the witnesses were physically assaulted and threatened in the Court premises had to be given its due weight- Interim bail granted by High Court deserved to be set aside-Appeals allowed. (Paras 13, 14)

        Code of Criminal Procedure 1989 - Framing of charge -The provisions relating to framing of charge against accused before the trial commences, are contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1989 (1933 A.D.) which is applicable to State of Jammu and Kashmir- The statute requires that every charge framed under said code should state offence with which the accused is charged and if the law which creates the offence gives it any specific name, the offence should also be described in the charge by that name only- The statute further requires that the law and section of the law against which the offence is said to have been committed has to be mentioned in the charge- It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that the accused should be informed with certainty and accuracy the exact nature of the charge brought against him- The object of the statement of particulars to be mentioned in the charge is to enable the accused person to know the substantive charge, he will have to meet and to be ready for it before the evidence is given- The extent of the particulars necessary to be given in the charge depends upon the facts and the circumstances of each case (Para 6)