Back
2016 Supreme(SC) 142
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. BOBDE, AMITAVA ROY, JJ.
Bharamappa Gogi – Appellant
Versus
Praveen Murthy & Ors. Etc. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2216-2217 of 2010
Decided on : 09-02-2016
IMPORTANT POINT
The purpose of framing a charge against an accused person is to acquaint him with the incriminating facts and circumstances proposed to be proved against him in the trial to follow.
Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 211, 220, 222 – Framing of charge – Incident of robbery and murder – Trial court framing charges u/s 120B/302/390/392/457 r/w section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – No charge framed u/s 397 IPC – High Court remitting matter to trial court for framing charge u/s 397 – Charged sections adequately encompassing all essential facts of murder in the course of robbery together with lurking house trespass and house breaking by night – Ingredients of section 397 already considered – In spite of no charge u/s 397, accused persons knew the incriminating facts and circumstances proposed to be proved against them – Incident a decade old – Remand uncalled for – High Court ought to decide matter on merits. (Para 12, 13, 14)
(1980) Supp. SCC 92 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
In the night of 18.4.2005 respondents committed robbery in the house of Nemiraj Gogi and murdered him.
Trial court convicted and sentenced the respondents under Sections 120B/302/390/392/457 read with Section 34 IPC.
High Court interfered with the conviction of the respondents-accused and remitted the matter to the trial court to frame charge under Section 397 IPC against the respondents-accused and to undertake a fresh consideration of the materials on record. Liberty was also granted to the trial court to record additional evidence, if construed necessary.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Result: Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Amitava Roy, J.
These appeals register a challenge to the judgment and order dated 4.12.2009 rendered in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1126 of 2006 and 1167 of 2006 preferred by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 2216 of 2010 and respondent No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 2217 of 2010 respectively.
2. The appellant-complainant is aggrieved by the interference with the conviction of the respondents-accused recorded by the trial court. Whereas respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 2216 of 2010 were convicted under Sections 390/392/457 read with Section 34 IPC, they were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC. The respondent No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 2217 of 2010, however, had been additionally convicted under Section 302 IPC. All the three accused were sentenced accordingly. Though the respondents-accused preferred appeals against their conviction, as above, the State refrained from doing so, more particularly against the acquittal of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 of the charge under Section 302 IPC.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. The prosecution case relates back to the night of 18.4.2005. The deceased Nemiraj Gogi was in his house, while his wife and son were out of station. It is alleged that the respondents-accused visited his house in the said night, committed robbery of the valuable household items including gold and silver articles and in the process, also committed the murder of Nemiraj Gogi. According to the prosecution, the housemaid in the morning, having found the deceased body, informed the brother of the deceased, who lodged the FIR on 19.4.2005 at 8 A.M. and the investigation was thus set in motion. The report mentioned that some unknown persons had committed the offence.
5. In course of the investigation, recoveries of the valuable articles, claimed to be at the instance of the respondents-accused, were made. According to the prosecution, recovery of the weapon of assault i.e. the knife and seizure, amongst them, of the blood stained clothes of the deceased were also effected. The respondents-accused were arrested and on the completion of the inquisition, charge-sheet under Sections 120B/302/380/394 and 397 read with Section 34 IPC was laid against them. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence.
6. The trial court framed charges against the respondents-accused under Sections 120B/302/390/392/457 read with Section 34 IPC and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and on a consideration of the other materials on record, convicted and sentenced the respondents-accused as above.
7. The High Court, as the impugned judgment and order would reveal, not only did find fault with the trial court in omitting to frame charge under Section 397 IPC against the respondents-accused, but also recorded its disapproval of the analysis and the appreciation of the evidence on record. The High Court was, inter alia, of the view that the trial court was not justified in acquitting the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 1126 of 2006 of the charge under Section 302 IPC. Referring to Sections 386 and 401 Cr.P.C. and invoking its suo motu power of revision, the High Court interfered with the conviction of the respondents-accused and remitted the matter to the trial court to frame charge under Section 397 IPC against the respondents-accused and to undertake a fresh consideration of the materials on record. Liberty was also granted to the trial court to record additional evidence, if construed necessary.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant-informant has urged that having regard to the conspectus of facts on which the case of the prosecution is founded, the trial court did not commit any error in not framing a charge under Section 397 IPC against the respondents-accused. He maintained that the High Court in this premise, ought not to have interfered with their conviction, but ought to have heard their appeals on merit after affording due opportun
