IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
Sabratul @ Golam Rasul Kaderi & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. – Respondents
CRR 4141 of 2022
Decided on : 16-05-2024
Alteration - Criminal Procedure - IPC Sections 326, 216 - The court discussed the powers under Section 216 of the CrPC to alter charges based on evidence, emphasizing the necessity of ensuring no prejudice to the accused while allowing the addition of Section 326 IPC due to grievous injuries.
Fact of the Case:
The case arose from a police report alleging assault with deadly weapons, leading to grievous injuries. The de-facto complainant sought to add Section 326 IPC after the initial charge sheet was filed under lesser charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the injury report indicated grievous hurt, justifying the addition of Section 326 IPC. It criticized the investigating officer for failing to collect complete medical evidence and emphasized the court's authority to alter charges based on new evidence.
Issues: Whether the addition of Section 326 IPC was justified based on the evidence presented, and whether the court's alteration of charges complied with procedural requirements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it has the authority to alter charges at any time before judgment, provided there is sufficient material linking the charges to the evidence presented, ensuring no prejudice to the accused.
Result: The court affirmed the order allowing the addition of Section 326 IPC and dismissed the revision petition.
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
1. The present revision has been preferred against an order dated May 11, 2022, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Chanchal, Malda, in connection with G.R. Case No. 1986 of 2018, arising out of Harishchandrapur Police Station Case No. 773 of 2018, October 26, 2018, under Sections 447/323/325/354/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, whereby the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Chanchal, Malda has been pleased to allow the prayer of the De-facto complainant for addition of Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The present case has been initiated on the basis of information lodged with the Harishchandrapur Police Station, by one Anjumwara of Mahendrapur, Malda. The said information was registered as Harishchandrapur Police Station case no. 773 of 2018, dated 26.10.2018, for investigation into alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 447/341/325/326/308/354/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. In spite of due service, there is no representation on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.
4. The allegations brought by way of the First Information Report are inter alia to the effect that:-
5. The petitioners state that after completion of the Investigation, the Investigating Agency filed Charge Sheet No. 43 of 2019 dated 26.10.2019 under Sections 447/323/325/354/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. The petitioners state that on 22.04.2021, the de-facto complainant filed an application under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for further investigation. On 05.08.2021 Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chanchal, Malda on hearing both sides and was pleased to the reject the said application.
7. On 11.05.2022 date was fixed for passing order in respect of consideration of Charge. On that day Learned Magistrate heard both sides and was pleased to direct that the prayer of de-facto complainant be allowed to the extent of addition of Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code to the said charge.
8. The petitioners/accuseds case is that as per Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, accused must have used dangerous weapons or means for grievous hurt. But as per the injury report, one bamboo stick was used by the petitioners and bamboo sticks cannot be said to be a dangerous weapon as stated by the petitioners.
9. The petitioners further state that, Learned Magistrate has failed to comply with the provision of Section 301(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where it is clearly stated that the private pleader can assist the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor.
10. The relevant part of the order under revision is as follows:-
J.O CODE – WB1424
Order dated 11.05.2022
………….. It has been next alleged by the de-facto complainant that the I.O. has investigated this case without interrogating the de-facto complainant and without recording any statement of the witnesses u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. whose names have been enlisted in the charge sheet by the concerned I.O. and I.O. has not collected the injury report of the injured person namely Salam and such injury report clearly specifies that such injured person sustained injury on his head and in his eyes and it is clearly mentioned in the injury report that the fractured was seen in his frontal bone of sculf due to the sharp cut injury which attracts Section 326/307 of IPC but the concerned I.O. has submitted the charge sheet
Anant Prakash Sinha v State of Haryana
The court established that it can alter charges under Section 216 CrPC based on evidence, ensuring no prejudice to the accused, even after the trial has commenced.
The power to alter the charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C. is exclusive to the Court and can be exercised at any time before the judgment is pronounced. The alteration must be founded on material availa....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the trial court has the comprehensive and unrestrained power to alter or add charges at any time before judgment is pronounced, as provided un....
The court's power to alter or add charges before judgment is pronounced is comprehensive and unrestrained, provided there is material on record justifying the addition or alteration, as provided unde....
The Court upheld its power under Section 216 of the CrPC to add charges upon prosecution request, emphasizing the trial's necessity and the end of justice.
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction limits intervention in Trial Court decisions unless there is a clear error or injustice, especially regarding the framing of charges under the Criminal Proced....
The court clarified that a conviction for a lesser charge is permissible when the evidence does not support the greater charge, as per Section 222 of the CrPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. and the court's power to alter or add charges at any time before the judgment is pronounced, ensuring....
Alteration of charge – Jurisdiction of Section 216 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised on application made by any of parties but on its own satisfaction.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.