Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered an appeal against the conviction of four accused for offences under Sections 148, 302 read with 149, and 307 read with 149 IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case was that on 6 December 2000, an altercation led to the accused attacking the complainant party, resulting in the death of Harpal Singh and injuries to others. The trial court convicted the accused, and the High Court affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court noted that one of the accused, Diwan Singh, was found to be a juvenile and his conviction was set aside. The Court framed two main issues: the omission to frame a proper charge under Section 213 CrPC and the failure to put material circumstances to the accused under Section 313 CrPC. The charge framed alleged that the deceased died due to firearm injury caused by accused no.2, but the prosecution evidence showed that the deceased died due to assault by other accused with weapons. The Court held that the charge was defective and misled the accused. Additionally, the circumstance that the accused attacked the deceased with weapons was not put to them in their statements under Section 313 CrPC, causing prejudice. The Court also held that with the acquittal of one accused, only four remained, and therefore the charge under Sections 148 and 149 IPC could not be sustained as an unlawful assembly requires five or more persons. The Court concluded that the cumulative effect of these defects caused a failure of justice and set aside the conviction of the appellants, ordering their acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Charge Framing - Section 213 CrPC - Omission to Frame Proper Charge - Where the charge framed alleged that the deceased died due to firearm injury caused by accused no.2, but the prosecution evidence showed that the deceased died due to assault by other accused with weapons, the charge was defective and misled the accused, causing prejudice (Paras 9-12). B) Criminal Procedure - Examination of Accused - Section 313 CrPC - Failure to Put Incriminating Circumstances - The circumstance that the accused attacked the deceased with weapons causing death was not put to the accused in their statements under Section 313 CrPC, which caused serious prejudice as the accused were not given an opportunity to explain the same (Paras 13-15). C) Indian Penal Code - Unlawful Assembly - Sections 141, 148, 149 IPC - Requirement of Five or More Persons - Where one of the five accused was acquitted on the ground of juvenility, only four accused remained, and therefore the charge under Sections 148 and 149 IPC cannot be sustained as an unlawful assembly requires at least five persons (Paras 8, 16). D) Criminal Procedure - Prejudice - Effect of Defective Charge and Omission under Section 313 CrPC - The cumulative effect of the defective charge and the failure to put material circumstances to the accused resulted in a failure of justice, warranting acquittal of the appellants (Paras 17-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the omission to frame a proper charge under Section 213 CrPC and the failure to put material circumstances to the accused under Section 313 CrPC caused prejudice to the accused and vitiated the conviction.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction of appellants Kalicharan, Yaad Prakash, and Shakuntala Devi, and ordered their acquittal. The conviction of Diwan Singh had already been set aside earlier.
Law Points
- Defective charge under Section 213 CrPC
- Failure to put material circumstances under Section 313 CrPC
- Unlawful assembly requires five or more persons under Section 141 IPC
- Prejudice caused by omission to frame proper charge
- Prejudice caused by omission to put circumstances to accused
