Introduction:
According to one definition charge was stated as “charge serves the purpose of notice or intimation to the accused, drawn up according to specific language of law, giving clear and unambiguous or precise notice of the nature of accusation that the accused is called upon to meet in the course of a trial.”
The fundamental of entire trial proceeding depends upon the formation of charge. Requirement for such fair trial in criminal cases is to give precise information to accused about the accusation levied upon him. This step is of great significance because the accused person is given appropriate information to prepare his defence. In the code of criminal procedure, a provision has been implied for the intimation of charge given to accused initially before the commencement of proceedings. Not only intimation of charge but the evidence must also be tendered properly for the matter of relevance.
As per the provisions of section 173 of code of criminal procedure, 1973 makes it necessary for the court to take the cognizance of the documents specifically mentioned in the provision whenever the charge is framed upon the institution of police report. The court need not to adduce reasons for the formation of charge. In a case it was held that “there is no need to appreciate evidence at this stage. Notably the judge is not empowered to invoke section 311 and call witnesses at this stage of charging.”
The code of criminal procedure specifically deals with provisions contained under sections 211 – 224 and 464. The provisions dealing with charge does not specify who needs to be framed under charge. The court is authorised to alter or add the charge if given proper evidences under appropriate circumstances before the pronouncement of judgement.
PROVISIONS DEALING WITH CHARGE:
• Section 211:
The section deals with “content of charge” which implies that charge needs to be stated specifying under which offence accused has been held liable. The section under which such offence has been described must be mentioned. The section also implies that if the accused person has been previously convicted of some offence, that must also be accounted into the formation of charge.
Illustration – Section 184 of IPC deals with obstruction caused to person who is authorised by a public servant to sell a property. In such section the offence has been described in a statement. Hence, when a charge is framed upon such section then all the details must be prescribed as what is held in the provision.
• Section 212:
By the virtue of this section particulars as to time, place and person needs to be specified. The accused person must be given the notice of the matter for the offence he has been allegedly accused of. In case of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of money or other movable property, sufficiency would be specifying gross sum or description of the movable property, whatever the case maybe.
• Section 213:
This section gives the manner of stating the committed offence. Circumstances attracting this section onto such matters which doesn’t clarify the “charge” under section 211 and 212. Therefore section 213 applies to give more specification to about the manner of particulars stated in a charge.
Illustration – A is accused for disobeying the direction of law in order to save B from the punishment which he is allegedly liable by committing an offence. The charge must be set out for the disobedience and infringement of law.
• Section 214:
The provisions laid under this section gives a rule for interpreting the words used in the charge. It provides that in every charge word used in describing an offence shall be deemed to have been used in the sense attached to them respectively by the law under which such offence is punishable.
• Section 215:
The proviso apprehends the circumstance which cause misleading to the accused person and caused failure of justice on the note that the framing of charge was done with an error or an omission. Therefore, no such error or omission can be justified unless it prejudices the nature of justice.
Illustration – A is charged with cheating on B, and the manner in which he cheated B is not set out in the charge. There were many transactions between A and B, and A had no means of knowing to which of them charge referred and offered no defence. The court may inter from such facts that the omission to set out the manner of the cheating was, in the case, a material error.
• Section 216:
The provision specified the authority given to court to set out alteration or addition in charge if necessary. Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused so as to enable him/her to prepare himself/herself to meet the fresh challenges. If alteration or addition to the charge is such that it prejudices the accused in its defence or prosecutor in conduct of the case, the court may alter or add charge in such manner that it had been the original charge. The court even has discretion to direct a new trial or adjourn the continued case for a period of time. If the offence stated in alteration or added charge is one for the prosecution of which previous sanction is necessary, the case shall not be proceeded with until such sanction is obtained, unless sanction has been already obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as those on which the altered or added charge is founded.
• Section 217:
This section specifies to recall witnesses when charge is altered after the commencement of the trial. The prosecutor and accused shall be allowed to recall or re-summon and examine with reference such alteration or addition when the court considers that the witness has been recalled or re-examined for the purpose recording the witness in writing at vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice. The court also has discretion to call witness for whom it considers to be material.
ALTERATION UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES:
Pursuant to section 216 of code of criminal procedure, 1973 the court may alter charge or add at any time before the judgement is pronounced. Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused. Section 216(3) deals with the circumstance in which the charge is altered or added in such a manner as the initial charge implied does not give direct proposition for the commencement of trial as it prejudices the accused in his defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case. Such alteration or addition deems to be the original charge the case. Section 216(4) gives the extension to sub-section (3) of section 216 stating that in such circumstance the court even has authority to either direct a new trial or adjourn the continued one for a period necessary.
Basically, the section deals with comprehensive power to remedy the defects in framing and non-framing of charge, even if it is discovered at initial stage or any stage subsequently being inclusive of section 313 statement, prior to judgement. In a case hon’ble Supreme Court held that the code gives ample power to the courts to alter or amend a charge whether by the trial court or by the appellate court provided that the accused has not to face a charge for a new offence or is not prejudiced either by keeping him in the dark about that charge or in not giving a full opportunity of meeting it and putting forward any defence open to him, on the charge finally preferred against him.
Whereas a judgement held by court made it necessary that in case of addition of new charge at the stage of cross-examination of prosecutrix was held bad as trial court did not inquire into the facts that gave rise to the prima facie case of the additional charge.
CONCLUSION :
The basic rule regarding the fair trial in criminal cases is a precise statement of the accusation. Therefore, the code of criminal procedure has laid sets out some provisions specifically mentioned under section 211 – 217 which gives the purview of how charges must be framed and what particulars needed to be prescribed. Many cases have been evidence that the error erupts the fair nature of justice therefore section 216 of the code gives the supremacy to courts to conduct fair trial by altering or adding up to initial charge framed upon the accused person. The court has been given full discretion to work upon the matter by even altering any kind of omission that prejudices nature of law.
REFERENCES:
- R.V. Kelkar’s, Criminal Procedure
- Code of criminal Procedure, 1973
- Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/, 12-03-2021
.jpeg)
