2025 Supreme(SC) 1288

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KUMAR, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Sushil Kumar Tiwari - Appellant
Versus
Hare Ram Sah and Others - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 3813 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 18377 of 2024]
Decided On : 01-09-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Effect of omission or defect in charge – Mere discovery of an error, irregularity or omission in framing of charge does not ipso facto render decision of Court as invalid.
(2) Joinder of trial – When a ground of non-joinder or misjoinder of charges/trial is taken before Appellate Court, test to be applied is whether such non-joinder or misjoinder has resulted into failure or miscarriage of justice and has prejudiced accused.
(3) Underlying foundation of principle of beyond reasonable doubt is that no innocent should face punishment for a crime that he has not done.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 464 – Effect of omission or defect in charge – Mere discovery of an error, irregularity or omission in framing of charge does not ipso facto render decision of Court as invalid – Even a case of non-framing of charge is not liable to be discarded on that ground alone – In order to vitiate decision, what is necessary is failure of justice as a result of such error or omission or irregularity – Ordinarily, in a criminal trial, stage of charge is sandwiched between stages of investigation and trial – It is gateway to trial and prior to this stage, stages of registration of FIR, filing of charge-sheet and arguments on charge occur – During all these stages, accused has right to be informed, and is informed, about allegations against him and charge-sheet finally culminates entire case of prosecution and makes it clearly known to accused persons colour and content of allegations – Merely for non-statement of correct date in formal charge, it could not be said that accused persons have been robbed of a fair trial or that failure of justice has been occasioned. (Paras 26 and 27)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 223 – Joinder of trial – Ordinarily, distinct offences committed by different persons are to be tried separately – Whereas, a joint trial of different offences committed by same person is contingent upon fulfilment of conditions envisaged in Sections 219 to 221 of Cr.P.C.; joint trial of different offences committed by different persons is solely governed by Section 223 – Mere irregular conduct of a joint or separate trial does not vitiate trial as a whole and the proof of failure of justice is sine qua non for holding trial as invalid – When a ground of non-joinder or misjoinder of charges/trial is taken before Appellate Court, test to be applied is whether such non-joinder or misjoinder has resulted into failure or miscarriage of justice and has prejudiced accused – It is not enough for Appellate Court to merely hold that Trial Court ought to have tried certain persons jointly or separately in facts and circumstances of the case – Mere non-compliance of procedure contemplated under Section 223 does not ipso facto render trial as invalid, and same cannot form the basis of returning a finding of prejudice and failure of justice – Said conclusion must emanate from facts of the case, after a thorough examination of facts and evidence on record. (Paras 29, 31, 33 and 35)

(C) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – A reasonable doubt is one that renders version of prosecution as improbable, and leads Court to believe in existence and probability of an alternate version of facts – It is a serious doubt which must be backed by reason – Underlying foundation of principle of beyond reasonable doubt is that no innocent should face punishment for a crime that he has not done – But a flipside of same is that at times, owing to a mis-application of this principle, actual culprits manage to find their way out of clutches of law – Such misapplication of this principle, resulting into culprits walking free by taking benefit of doubt, is equally dangerous for society – Every instance of acquittal of an actual culprit revolts against sense of security of society and acts as a blot on criminal justice system – Not only should no innocent face punishment for something that he has not done, but equally, no culprit should manage an acquittal on the basis of unreasonable doubts and misapplication of procedure. (Para 37)

Facts of the case:

Following two issues arise for consideration:

(i) Whether High Court fell in a grave error in acquitting Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by holding that prosecution failed to discharge its evidentiary burden as the evidence led by the prosecution was full of inconsistencies and contradictions?

(ii) Whether High Court erred in its finding that the trial was carried out in violation of Section 223 Cr.P.C. and non-adherence to the same had caused prejudice to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, thereby leading to miscarriage of justice?

Findings of Court:

Impugned judgment is liable to be set aside being unsustainable. View taken by Trial Court was correct and we find no infirmity in the same. Judgment of Trial Court stands restored, both on conviction and sentence.

Result : Appeal allowed.