9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Non-compliance with Sections 173(4) and 207A(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). 2. Legality of the proceedings and trial. 3. Prejudice to the accused due to procedural omissions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Non-compliance with Sections 173(4) and 207A(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): The primary issue in this appeal was whether the non-compliance with Sections 173(4) and 207A(3) of the CrPC affected the legality of the proceedings and the trial resulting in the conviction of the appellant. Section 173(4) mandates that after forwarding a report, the officer in charge of the police station shall furnish the accused with copies of the report, FIR, and other relevant documents. Section 207A(3) requires the Magistrate to ensure these documents are provided to the accused at the commencement of the inquiry. The High Court found that these provisions were not complied with, but held that the accused had not shown any prejudice due to this non-compliance. 2. Legality of the proceedings and trial: The court examined whether the non-compliance with the procedural requirements rendered the entire proceedings and trial null and void. The appellant's counsel argued that such omissions vitiated the trial, necessitating a fresh trial irrespective of prejudice. The court, however, held that the provisions of Sections 173(4) and 207A(3) are directory and not mandatory. The non-compliance was considered an irregularity curable under Section 537 of the CrPC, provided no prejudice was shown. 3. Prejudice to the accused due to procedural omissions: The court noted that no grievance was raised about the non-compliance during the committal proceedings or the trial before the Sessions Judge. The High Court observed that the accused received the necessary documents before the recording of the statements of the prosecution witnesses and did not request an adjournment or claim insufficient time to prepare their defense. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's finding that the accused had failed to show any prejudice resulting from the non-compliance. The court emphasized that the trial was conducted substantially in the manner prescribed by the Code, and the irregularity did not affect the merits of the case. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the non-compliance with Sections 173(4) and 207A(3) did not vitiate the proceedings or the trial. The irregularity was curable under Section 537 of the CrPC, as no prejudice to the accused was demonstrated. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The court stressed the importance of complying with procedural requirements to safeguard the interests of the accused but held that such non-compliance, in this case, did not warrant a retrial.
|
