Shubhani Mittal | Vivekananda Global University | 24th January 2020
Dr Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Criminal Appeal No. 1934 of 2019
FACTS –
In this case FIR was lodged by the respondent alleging that appellant and his family members of his family had harassed his daughter with demands for money and transfer of land in their names.
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. An additional charge-sheet was filed by the investigating officer in respect of the commission of offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC which was based on the statements of various witnesses and with respect of the appellant raising a demand of Rs 5,00,000/- for securing a job for the complainant’s daughter as a doctor in the United Kingdom.
The Trial Court framed charges against the appellant only for offences mentioned in the original charge-sheet dated 30 June 2012 under Section 498A of the IPC along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Public Prosecutor filed an application 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, charges were not framed by the trial judge under those provisions. Trial Court allowed the application and charges under Sections 406 and 420 were framed against the appellant.
Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, which observed that observed that the court only had the opportunity of going through the original charge-sheet and not the additional charge-sheet, the appellant instituted revisional proceedings before the High Court.
Judgement –
The court referred to earlier decisions and observed that Section 216 provides the court an exclusive and wide-ranging power to change or alter any charge. It said:
‘’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. 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. 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.’’
Leave a Reply