Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 1023

ABHAY S. OKA, PANKAJ MITHAL
Chandra Pratap Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Dama Sheshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Adv. Ms. Komal Mundhra, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Agrawal, AOR Ms. Anagha N.Sharma,Adv. Mr. Ananvay Anand Vardhan, Adv. Ms. Divya Narayanan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Upendra Mishra, Adv. Mr. Karan Bishnoi, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) (!) - (!) - (!) (!)

What is the appropriate procedure and prejudice standard when an appellate court alters or adds a charge under Cr.P.C. Section 216 in light of Section 386, and must notice be given to the accused to avoid violation of natural justice?

What is the correct application and limitation of Section 34 IPC versus Section 149 IPC in cases of common intention vs common object, and when can a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 be sustained or set aside?

What considerations justify or disallow remand in appellate proceedings for long-past incidents, and how should appellate courts handle alterations of charges when the accused’s counsel is absent?

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

1. This is an appeal by accused no. 2 who has been convicted by the High Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). The appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC. For the first offence, he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. For the second offence under Section 201 of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.

2. There were 17 accused prosecuted for the offence of triple murder. Out of 17 accused, the Trial Court acquitted accused nos. 3 to 8, 10, 13, 15 and 17. The Trial Court convicted accused nos. 2, 9, 11, 12, and 16 for the offence punishable under Section 302, read with sections 148 and 149 and Section 201 of IPC. Accused Nos. 1 and 14 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 148 of IPC. The Trial Court did not frame a charge against any accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. The High Court acquitted accused nos. 9, 11 and 12.

3. The allegation was of the triple murder of Uma Prasad, Vinod Kumar and Munau

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(SC) 1023

ABHAY S. OKA, PANKAJ MITHALChandra Pratap Singh – AppellantVersusState of M. P. – Respondent

What is the appropriate procedure and prejudice standard when an appellate court alters or adds a charge under Cr.P.C. Section 216 in light of Section 386, and must notice be given to the accused to avoid violation of natural justice?

What is the correct application and limitation of Section 34 IPC versus Section 149 IPC in cases of common intention vs common object, and when can a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 be sustained or set aside?

What considerations justify or disallow remand in appellate proceedings for long-past incidents, and how should appellate courts handle alterations of charges when the accused’s counsel is absent?

Cases Referred (2)

ABHAY S. OKA, PANKAJ MITHAL
Chandra Pratap Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent