SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 18146

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
DR.PRABHU MATHEW – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
OP(Crl.) 425/2019



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE
For the Respondents: SRI.R.KISHORE

Trial courts can amend charges based on evidence presented during trial proceedings.

Headnote:This case involves an original petition challenging the court charge in CC No. 259/2017 for failing to include Section 341 IPC among other allegations. The court determines that the charge can be amended later if evidence shows basis for Section 341 IPC. The petitioner can present relevant evidence at trial. The judgment emphasizes the flexibility of charges in ongoing trials.

Table of Content
1. court challenges regarding charge framing. (Para 2)
2. grievance about non-inclusion of specific charges. (Para 3)
3. trial court's discretion to modify charges based on evidence. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

The above original petition is filed with following prayers :

(i) Issue a direction to the court below to alter Ext.P4 charge including offence under Section 341 IPC .

(ii) To issue any other order or direction this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the nature and circumstances of the case, “[sic]

2. The petitioner is the defacto complainant in CC No. 259/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Haripad. According to the petitioner, as per the prosecution case, the offences under secs. 294(b), 506(1), 341 and 392 of the IPC are made out. But, the police in its final report included only the offences under Secs.506(1) and 294(b) . Therefore, the petitioner filed Crl.M.C. No. 8337/2018 requesting for further investigation. This Court as per Ext.P3 judgment directed the court below to frame charge taking into consideration the statement of the witnesses. The present grievance of the petitioner is that, while framing charge, Sec.341 is not included. Ext.P4 is the court charge. Therefore, this original petition is filed stating that Sec. 341 is not added in the Court Charge framed by the Court on 05.07.2019.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The only grievance of the petitioner is that Sec.341 IPC is not added in the Court Charge, even though the statement recorded would prima facie made out an offence under Sec.341 . I am of the considered opinion that, for that purpose, charge need not be set aside by this Court. If at any stage, while adducing evidence, the court found that Sec.341 is made out, the court can add the charge as per the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and BNSS. Now, this original petition is pending before this Court from 2019 onwards saying that Sec.341 is not added while framing the charge. The case is stayed and the stay is in force even now. I am of the considered opinion that the trial court can proceed with the case and if at any stage, while adducing evidence, Sec. 341 is made out, the court can modify the charge or add Sec.341 . The petitioner is free to adduce evidence before the trial court to that effect.

With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top