Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court in its judgment dated May 3, 2023, reiterated that the addition of charge under Section 216 CrPC may be done at any time before the pronouncement of judgment. It is an enabling provision that allows the court to act under contingencies as and when relevant facts are brought to its notice.

Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, while disposing of an application under Section 482 CrPC, observed, “It is very much clear that if the alteration or addition to a charge is such that no prejudice is caused to either the parties, the court may, in its discretion, proceed with the trial by amending the said technical defects. It is admitted by the parties that the prosecution witnesses have been examined regarding the place of incident and by adding the place of incident in the said charge the same does not cause any prejudice to either of the parties.”

In judging the question of prejudice, reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Main Pal v. State of Haryana, AIR 2010 SC 3292 wherein it was held that the court, in such circumstances should act with a broad vision and not get into technicalities. Their main concern should be to see whether the accused had a fair trial, whether he knew what he was being tried for, whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained fairly and clearly and whether he was given a full and fair chance to defend himself, observed the court. 

Court was hearing an application filed under Section 482 CrPC challenging the order dated 20.03.2023 passed by Sessions Judge, wherein the application by the informant for amending the charge to the extent of “place of occurrence” was rejected. The grievance of the informant was that in the FIR itself, the place of occurrence was specifically mentioned – that the accused murdered his father in front of the house of one accused Praveen Kumar, and during the investigation as well, Investigating Officer prepared the site plan which mentioned the place of occurrence specifically, however, the trial court committed illegality in the framing of charge against the accused by not mentioning the place of occurrence as such.

The counsel for the State submitted that the mere irregularity in framing the charge does not vitiate the trial unless some prejudice is caused to the accused. Moreover, no matter powers under Section 216 CrPC is wide, the same would be extremely limited and no addition or objection with regard thereto can be raised as a matter of right, he argued.

Case Title: Yograj Singh v. State of UP | APPLICATION U/s 482 No. – 12560 of 2023