Back
2014 Supreme(Pat) 915
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA, JJ.
JAGDISH PRASAD & Ors. - APPELLANTS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR - RESPONDENT
Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 348 & 392 of 1992
Decided On : 11-09-2014
For the Appellants:Mr. B.P. Pandey, Mr. Pramod Kumar, Mr. Raj Bhardwaj, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP
The prosecution must prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, and the accused must be provided with a fair trial, including proper charge framing and recording of accurate statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Headnote:
Charge Framing - Indian Penal Code - Section 302/34, Section 27 of the Arms Act - The court noted that the charge as framed was not in accordance with law and did not contain the necessary facts constituting the offence. The court emphasized the importance of framing a charge as a notice to the accused of the accusation and highlighted the significance of a proper charge in ensuring a fair trial.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arose from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif. The appellants were found guilty of offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case was based on an alleged fard-beyan of the victim, who later died, and the subsequent investigation and trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. It highlighted inconsistencies and doubts in the prosecution's evidence, including discrepancies in witness testimonies, improper framing of charges, inadmissible evidence, and conscious concealment of civil court proceedings by the prosecution. As a result, the court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and punishment, and relieved the appellants of their bail bonds.
Issues: Improper framing of charges, inconsistencies in witness testimonies, inadmissible evidence, conscious concealment of civil court proceedings by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proper charge framing, the need for competent witnesses to prove documents, and the significance of recording accurate and meaningful statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court also highlighted the requirement for the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the conviction and punishment were set aside, and the appellants were relieved of their bail bonds.
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.
When these appeals were taken up, Shri B.P. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of two appeals pressed I.A. (Cr.) No. 1865 of 2014 which has been filed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 348 of 1992, placing on record that appellant no. 2 Umeshwar Prasad @ Umesh Prasad, appellant no. 3 Satydeo Singh and appellant no. 4 Ram Swaroop Singh of this appeal have died during the pendency of the appeal.
2. Considering the matter, the appeal in relation to the aforesaid appellants stands abated.
3. Heard Shri B. P. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of two appeals and Shri Ajay Mishra, learned A.P.P.
4. The two appeals arise from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8.9.1992 and 9.9.1992 respectively passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 1980 whereby all the 8 appellants have been found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. They have been accordingly, sentenced to life imprisonment with no separate sentence under the Arms Act.
5. It may be noted that the appellant Maheshwar Singh was charged separately under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. The others including Maheshwar Singh was also charged under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Jugeshwar Singh, Kameshwwar Singh, Maheshwar Singh, Kapil Singh and Ramswaroop Singh @ Kankar were charged under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Maheshwar Singh was acquitted in respect of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Before proceeding further we would like to note the manner in which the court framed charge “That you on the night intervening 15th/16th day of June, 1979 at village Gokhulpur, P.S.- Chandi, District-Nalanda did commit murder by intentionally causing death of Jamuna Singh and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section302 of the Indian Penal Code ” “That you on the night intervening 15th/16th day of June, 1979 at village Gokhulpur P.S. Chandi, District- Nalanda committed murder of Jamuna Singh in furtherance of common intention of you all and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.”
7. We have noted this only to point out that this is not how charge or charges are framed. Chapter 17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with charge. If we go through the provisions of Sections 211 to 214 of the Cr.P.C., we would find that the charge as framed, in the present case, is not in accordance with law but in view of provisions of Section 215 of the Cr.P.C. and in view of the fact that the defence has not pleaded any prejudice, it did not affect the result of the trial. However, we would only wish to place on record that charge is a notice to the accused of the accusation, he has to defend. It must contain facts constituting the offence and the manner in which those facts arise and which facts are to be proved by the prosecution. Merely stating that “That you on the night intervening 15th/16th day of June, 1979 at village Gokhulpur, P.S.- Chandi, District-Nalanda did commit murder by intentionally causing death of Jamuna Singh and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section302 of the Indian Penal Code” is an apology for a charge. There is no notice to the accused with regard to the place, the time and the manner in which the offence was committed. Merely stating murder is merely stating the inference without the facts which has no meaning.
8. In the present case, we may note, if the court had taken this trouble, then, it would have immediately found that no charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code at all could have been framed against Maheshwar Singh because as per prosecution’s own version, Maheshwar Singh had not even touched the deceased in any manner nor he had committed any overt act in any manner. What is the importance of framing of charge? It is not a mere formality. It is not a triviality but it is a reality whi
