Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently raised concerns over a trial court framing charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder in a case where the charge sheet explicitly invoked the offence of murder, stating it cannot turn a blind eye to something which is inconceivable in law.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra dismissed a plea filed by one Vineet alias Chotu challenging the Uttarakhand High Court's order of February 17, 2023, which declined to suspend the substantive order of sentence passed by the trial court. The court noted that the High Court had fixed December 31 as the date for hearing the appeal.

In the case, the petitioner was put to trial in the court of the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, district Udham Singh Nagar for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court held the petitioner guilty of the alleged crime and sentenced him to undergo 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine for the offence punishable under Section 304, Part I of the IPC.

Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court, the petitioner preferred criminal appeal in the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. He prayed that the substantive order of sentence passed by the trial court be suspended from its operation pending the final disposal of the criminal appeal, and he be released on bail.

As the High Court declined to suspend the substantive sentence, he filed the instant petition before the top court.

Hearing the matter for the first time, and while issuing notice, the bench pointed out, "We observed in our order that we are anxious to know as to on what basis the trial court proceeded to frame charge for the offence under Section 304 of the IPC".

The court noted that it was the case of the prosecution that a fight ensued between the petitioner and the brother of the deceased on the fateful date of the incident. The deceased intervened to save his brother. At that point in time, as per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner armed with an iron rod hit blows on the head of the deceased, who succumbed to the head injuries due to excessive bleeding and shock.

"With this being the case of the prosecution, we are at our wits end to understand how the trial court could have framed charge in the first instance for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. When charge sheet is filed for the offence of murder punishable U/s 302 IPC how can the trial court frame charge for the offence U/s 304IPC. It seems the trial court was oblivious of Section 105 of the Evidence Act. We stop at this stage. We do not propose to observe anything further as the criminal appeal is pending before the High Court," the bench said.

According to Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, when an accused person is charged with an offence, the burden of proof is on them to prove that the case falls under a General Exception in the Indian Penal Code. This includes any special exceptions or provisos in the Penal Code or in any other law that defines the offense. The court will assume that the circumstances do not exist unless the accused proves otherwise.

In the case, the bench said, "It was necessary for us to observe as we should not turn a blind eye to something which is inconceivable in law. This aspect should be looked into by the High Court when the criminal appeal of the petitioner is taken up for hearing," the bench said.

Since the High Court fixed the criminal appeal for consideration on December 31, the bench said, "We should not interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. The High Court shall proceed with the final hearing of the appeal and try to dispose it of at the earliest".

Case Title: Vineet alias Chotu Vs The State of Uttarakhand