Charges can be altered or added anytime before the judgment is pronounced but the court has to prono

Dr Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

2019 SCC OnLine SC 1637

Criminal Appeal No. 1934 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 3884 of 2019) decided January 21, 2020.

Bench

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ

Fact

A charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and his parents for offences under Section 498A of the IPC along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. The investigating officer, upon receipt of additional information about the commission of other offences by the appellant, obtained permission from the Trial Court for further investigation. An additional charge-sheet was filed in respect of the alleged commission of offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The Trial Court framed charges against the appellant only for offences mentioned in the original charge-sheet under Section 498A of the IPC along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial commenced and after the recording of evidence and conclusion of arguments, the case was reserved for judgment. An application was filed by the Public Prosecutor under Section 216 of CrPC for alteration of charge stating that even though an additional charge-sheet had been filed by the investigating officer implicating the appellant for crimes under Sections 406 and 420 as charges were not framed by the trial judge under those provisions. The Trial Court allowed the application and charges under Sections 406 and 420 were framed against the appellant. The Trial Court observed that the court only had the opportunity of going through the original charge-sheet and not the additional charge-sheet that was kept in a separate bundle. Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the appellant instituted revisional proceedings before the High Court and then to Supreme Court.

Question of law

Whether the Trial Court has power to add or alter charges under S 216 CrPC after the judgment is reserved for pronouncement?

Argument Advanced

Appellant

Respondent

An application for alteration of charge under Section 216 was intentionally filed on the date of the pronouncement of judgment to unnecessarily delay the proceedings.

The ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 have not been fulfilled. At the stage of framing of charge, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. The court only needs to consider whether there is ground for presuming that the offence has been committed

The fourth respondent did not intend to delay the pronouncement of the decision. The additional charge sheet and the cognizance order had been in place before the Trial Court since 2013. The additional chargesheet missed the attention of the Magistrate because it was kept in a separate docket

The charge can be altered by the court at any time before the pronouncement of the judgment based on the materials available or subsequently brought on record during the course of the trial (Anant Prakash Sinha v State of Haryana10). In the present case, the investigating officer filed the additional charge-sheet only after he received additional information during the course of investigation in relation to offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC.

At the time of framing of charge, it is sufficient if the court is able to form a presumption regarding the existence of ingredients constituting the offence found upon the material placed before it. It is not necessary for the court to undertake an analysis of the credibility, veracity or evidentiary value of the materials placed before it

Held

The Court held that under the provisions of Section 216, the court is authorised to alter or add to the charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. Whenever such an alteration or addition is made, it is to be read out and explained to the accused.

Analysis of S. 216

The phrase “add to any charge” in Sub-Section (1) includes addition of a new charge. The provision enables the alteration or addition of a charge based on materials brought on record during the course of trial. Section 216 provides that the addition or alteration has to be done “at any time before judgment is pronounced”. SubSection (3) provides that if the alteration or addition to a charge does not cause prejudice to the accused in his defence, or the persecutor in the conduct of the case, the court may proceed with the trial as if the additional or alternative charge is the original charge. Sub-Section (4) contemplates a situation where the addition or alteration of charge will prejudice the accused and empowers the court to either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary to mitigate the prejudice likely to be caused to the accused.

The Court further held that Section 216 provides the court an exclusive and wide-ranging power to change or alter any charge. The use of the words “at any time before judgment is pronounced” in Sub-Section (1) empowers the court to exercise its powers of altering or adding charges even after the completion of evidence, arguments and reserving of the judgment. The alteration or addition of a charge may be done if in the opinion of the court there was an omission in the framing of charge or if upon prima facie examination of the material brought on record, it leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the alleged offence.

Test to be adopted by the court while deciding upon an addition or alteration of a charge

The test to be adopted by the court while deciding upon an addition or alteration of a charge is that the material brought on record needs to have a direct link or nexus with the ingredients of the alleged offence. Addition of a charge merely commences the trial for the additional charges, whereupon, based on the evidence, it is to be determined whether the accused may be convicted for the additional charges.

Guidelines for court

The court must exercise its powers under Section 216 judiciously and ensure that no prejudice is caused to the accused and that he is allowed to have a fair trial. The only constraint on the court’s power is the prejudice likely to be caused to the accused by the addition or alteration of charges. Sub-Section (4) accordingly prescribes the approach to be adopted by the courts where prejudice may be caused.

Share this:

1. Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)

2. Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

3. Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

4. Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)

5. Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

6. Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)

7.