IMPORTANT POINT
An accused can be convicted for an offence which is minor than the one, he has been charged with, unless the accused satisfies the Court that there has been a failure of justice by the non-framing of a charge under a particular penal provision, and some prejudice has been caused to the accused.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 302/34 -Prosecution of appellants three in number for causing death of deceased by assaulting him with deadly weopans- Trial Court held that A-2 alone could be convicted under Section 302 IPC and under Sections 447and 504 read with Section 34 IPC while A1 and A3 could be convicted under Sections 447 and 504 read with Section 34 IPC- Appeals thereagainst- High Court allowed State Appeal convicting all the three accused persons u/s 302 IPC-Appeals thereagainst-Ample evidence on record particularly deposition of PW.1, wife of deceased to show that when her husband fell down after receiving said injuries, accused stopped the assault- A-2 threw down the "Meli" and all the accused left the place of occurrence saying that the victim had fallen- This clearly established that appellants had no intention to kill the deceased and it all happened in the spur of the moment upon a heated exchange of words between the parties, after criminal trespass by the appellants on to the land of the deceased- Not appeared to be a pre-determined or pre-meditated case-Held Ends of justice would, be met, if all three appellants were convicted under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 IPC -Appeals disposed of (Para 25)
        Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 216- Section 216 empowers trial Court to alter/add charge(s), at any stage before conclusion of the trial- However, law requires that, in case such alteration/addition of charges causes any prejudice, in any way to the accused, there must be a fresh trial on the said altered/new charges, and for this purpose, prosecution may also be given an opportunity to recall witnesses as required under Section 217 Cr.P.C. -Instantly,both the courts below after appreciating the evidence available on record, came to a conclusion regarding the participation of all three appellants- The trial court could convict A-1 and A-3, only for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 504 IPC, for want of framing of charges under any other section of IPC.-Trial court failed to proceed with the case in the correct manner- If the trial Court was of the view that there was sufficient evidence on record against A-1 and A-3, which would make them liable for conviction and punishment for offences, other than those under Sections 447 and 504/34 IPC, court was certainly not helpless to alter/add the requisite charges, at any stage prior to the conclusion of trial (Paras 13, 14)
        Criminal Trial-Failure of Justice-When Occurs- The court must endeavour to find the truth- There would be failure of justice not only by unjust conviction but also by acquittal of the guilty, as a result of unjust failure to produce requisite evidence- Of course, the rights of the accused have to be kept in mind and safeguarded but they should not be over emphasised to the extent of forgetting that the victims also have rights- It has to be shown that the accused has suffered some disability or detriment in the protections available to him under Indian Criminal Jurisprudence (Para 11)
        Criminal Trial - Prejudice, -Plea of-Prejudice, is incapable of being interpreted in its generic sense and applied to criminal jurisprudence- The plea of prejudice has to be in relation to investigation or trial and not matters falling beyond their scope- Once the accused is able to show that there has been serious prejudice caused to him with respect to either of these aspects, and that the same has defeated the rights available to him under jurisprudence, then the accused can seek benefit under the orders of the Court (Para 21)
       Facts of the Case :
        Appellants three in number were prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of deceased by assaulting him with deadly weopans. Trial Court held that A-2 alone could be convicted under Section 302 IPC and under Sections 447and 504 read with Section 34 IPC while A1 and A3 could be convicted under Sections 447 and 504 read with Section 34 IPC. High Court however allowed State Appeal convicting all the three accused persons u/s 302 IPC.
        B .Present appeals have been preferred against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        There was Ample evidence on record particularly deposition of PW.1, wife of deceased to show that when her husband fell down after receiving said injuries, accused stopped the assault. A-2 threw down the "Meli" and all the accused left the place of occurrence saying that the victim had fallen. This clearly established that appellants had no intention to kill the deceased and it all happened in the spur of the moment upon a heated exchange of words between the parties, after criminal trespass by the appellants on to the land of the deceased Since Not appeared to be a pre-determined or pre-meditated case, Court Held that Ends of justice would, be met, if all three appellants were convicted under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 IPC .Appeals were disposed of.
       Result : Appeals disposed of

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

Case Details: The case involves Bhimanna (A-2), Yenkappa (A-1), and Suganna (A-3) appealing against convictions for murder (Section 302 IPC) by the High Court, which had reversed the Trial Court's decision that acquitted A-1 and A-3 of murder charges. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals, convicting all three under Section 304 Part-I IPC. (!) (!) (!)
Facts of the Incident: A land dispute arose between the appellants and the deceased regarding a pathway. On the day of the incident, the appellants trespassed on the deceased's land. After a heated exchange of words and insults instigated by A-1, the appellants assaulted the deceased with axes and a wooden plough part ("Meli"). The deceased fell, prompting the appellants to stop the assault and leave the scene. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Trial Court Findings: The Trial Court held that only A-2 (Bhimanna) acted with the intention to kill and could be convicted under Section 302 IPC. It found that A-1 and A-3 did not share a common intention to kill but were guilty of trespass (Section 447) and provocation (Section 504). The Trial Court refused to convict them for causing other injuries because no charges were framed for those specific offences under the Indian Penal Code. (!) (!) (!)
High Court Ruling: The High Court allowed the State's appeal, convicting A-1 and A-3 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, reasoning that since they were charged under Section 302, they should be convicted under it despite the Trial Court's finding on common intention. (!) (!)
Supreme Court Legal Principles on Charges:
- The Trial Court erred in acquitting A-1 and A-3 for causing injuries merely because charges were not framed; under Section 216 Cr.P.C., the Trial Court has the power to alter or add charges at any stage before the conclusion of the trial. (!) (!)
- An accused can be convicted for an offence minor than the one charged unless they prove a "failure of justice" or "prejudice" caused by the non-framing of the charge. (!) (!) (!)
- "Failure of justice" includes acquitting the guilty due to unjust failure to produce evidence or frame necessary charges, and courts must not over-emphasize accused rights to the detriment of the victim's rights. (!) (!)
Supreme Court Findings and Verdict:
- The Supreme Court found ample evidence showing the incident was not pre-meditated; the assault stopped once the victim fell, indicating no intention to kill. (!) (!)
- The Trial Court committed a grave error by not altering charges to reflect the evidence against A-1 and A-3 regarding the injuries they caused. (!) (!)
- The High Court erred in convicting A-1 and A-3 for murder (Section 302) because it did not reverse the Trial Court's finding that there was no common intention to kill among all three. (!)
- Final Decision: All three appellants were convicted under Section 304 Part-I (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) read with Section 34 IPC. A-2 was released forthwith as he had served the sentence, while A-1 and A-3 were sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. (!) (!)

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.-Both these appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 31st March, 2004 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 839 of 2001 and allowing Criminal Appeal No. 1132 of 2001, filed by the State. The High Court has dismissed the appeal of appellant Bhimanna, against the order of conviction under Section 302 by the trial court, but allowed the appeal of the State against the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 2005 herein, reversing the judgment of the trial court, acquitting them of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called ‘IPC’) and awarding them life imprisonment.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are as follows :–

(A) As per the case of the prosecution, Yenkappa (A-1), appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 2005 is the father of Bhimanna (A-2), who is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2005, and Suganna (A- 3), is the nephew of Yenkappa (A-1). Deceased Bheemanna was the nephew of Yenkappa(A-1). Yenkappa(A-1) owns land adjacent to the land of the deceased Bheemanna in revenue estate of village Buddinni, Police Station Ramdurga, in the district of Raichur. There was a dispute between Yenkappa and the deceased over the land of the deceased as, deceased refused to give him right of passage through his land. Thus, a Panchayat was convened in the village, wherein it was decided that neither of the parties will enter the others’ land, to use the same as a pathway.

(B) On 17.11.1999 at about 4.00 p.m., Yenkappa(A-1), alongwith Bhimanna (A-2) and Suganna (A-3), was returning home with agricultural implements i.e. axes and a plough. They attempted to use the land of the deceased as a pathway. The deceased Bheemanna, who was present on his land alongwith his wife Paddamma (PW.1) and mother, namely, Bheemava, obstructed the accused persons asking them not to pass through his land. Yenkappa(A-1) then started hurling abuses in filthy language and instigated Bhimanna (A-2) and Suganna (A-3) to assault the deceased. Thus, Bhimanna (A-2) and Suganna (A-3) began assaulting the deceased with axes over his head and right hand. Yenkappa (A-1) assaulted the deceased with “Meli” (Wooden part of a plough). Paddamma (PW.1) and Bheemava, mother of the deceased went to save the deceased, but they too, were threatened with assault. Similar threats were hurled when Rangayya (PW.6), nephew of the deceased and his father Hanumappa approached the place of occurrence. The accused persons left the place after assaulting the deceased, throwing away the axes and wooden part of the plough. Rangayya (PW.6) brought a bullock cart as asked by Paddamma (PW.1) from the village and the deceased was then taken to Ramdurga Police Station. Upon the advice of the police, the deceased was taken in a mini lorry, driven by Mahadevappa (PW.10) to Deodurga Hospital and when they reached there at 8.00 p.m., the doctor declared Bheemanna dead. On the basis of the complaint submitted by Paddamma (PW.1), an FIR was lodged at 8.15 p.m. under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 323 and 504 read with Section 149 IPC. Investigation was initiated by Rajashekhar (PW.14), Circle Inspector.

(C) The inquest was conducted over the dead body of the deceased Bheemanna in the presence of Panchas, including Basawarajaiah (PW.2). The post-mortem was conducted by Dr. Patil Prabhakar (PW.12). The investigating officer recovered the axes and the wooden part of the plough used in the crime and sent the same for FSL examination and, subsequently, the three appellants were also arrested. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 504, 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

(D) Upon conclusion of the trial in Sessions Case No. 40 of 2000, the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 19.6.2001, convicted Bhimanna (A-2) for the offences punishab

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(SC) 583

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA P. SATHASIVAM & DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.BHIMANNA - Appellant VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA - Respondent Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2005 with Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 2005Decided on : 04-09-2012.

Cases Referred (14)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM & DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.
BHIMANNA - Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2005 with Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 2005
Decided on : 04-09-2012.