9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1412 - SC - Indian LawsDowry - Harrasment with demands for money and transfer of land in their names - allegation is that the appellant and his family refused to take the complainant s daughter to the United Kingdom where her husband was staying unless her Stridhana property was transferred in their names - HELD THAT - In the present case, the investigating officer upon receipt of additional information about the alleged commission of offences under Sections 406 and 420 by the appellant, obtained permission for further investigation. Statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of CrPC indicated that the appellant had raised a demand of ₹ 5,00,000/- for securing a doctor s job for the complainant s daughter in the United Kingdom. After investigation, an additional charge-sheet was filed on 12 April 2013 against the appellant for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. This is evident from the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent before this Court which contains the docket order of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli - It is evident from the record that the earlier Additional Junior Civil Judge perused the additional charge-sheet and took cognizance of offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. However, at the time of framing charges, the additional charge-sheet was not brought to the notice of the court and the framing of charges against the appellant under Sections 406 and 420 was not considered. Therefore, the appellant was charged only for offences under Section 498A of the IPC along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was when an application under Section 216 of CrPC was filed by the public prosecutor on 13 February 2017 that it was brought to the notice of the Trial Judge that charges under Sections 406 and 420 were not framed. Section 216 provides the court an exclusive and wide-ranging power to change or alter any charge. 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 - 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. The veracity of the depositions made by the witnesses is a question of trial and need not be determined at the time of framing of charge. Appreciation of evidence on merit is to be done by the court only after the charges have been framed and the trial has commenced. However, for the purpose of framing of charge the court needs to prima facie determine that there exists sufficient material for the commencement of trial. The High Court has relied upon the materials on record and concluded that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC are attracted. The High Court has spelt out the reasons that have necessitated the addition of the charge and hence, the impugned order does not warrant any interference. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the framing of charges under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. 2. Procedural irregularities in the trial court's handling of additional charges. 3. Evaluation of evidence and material for framing charges. 4. Application of Section 216 of the CrPC in altering or adding charges. 5. Prejudice to the accused due to alteration or addition of charges. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Framing of Charges under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC: The case arose from a judgment by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which directed the framing of charges against the appellant under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The initial FIR filed on 10 March 2011 by the fourth respondent alleged harassment and demands for money and property transfer by the appellant and his family. An additional charge-sheet filed on 12 April 2013 implicated the appellant for demanding ?5,00,000/- to secure a job for the complainant's daughter. The High Court found that the trial court failed to frame charges under Sections 406 and 420 despite the additional charge-sheet and directed the framing of these charges. 2. Procedural Irregularities in the Trial Court's Handling of Additional Charges: The trial court initially framed charges only under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, ignoring the additional charge-sheet. The High Court noted that the trial court did not disclose reasons for rejecting the application to frame additional charges under Sections 406 and 420. This procedural lapse led to the High Court's direction to frame the additional charges. 3. Evaluation of Evidence and Material for Framing Charges: The High Court evaluated witness statements and additional charge-sheet materials, determining that the ingredients for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC were present. Witnesses corroborated the claim that the appellant demanded and received ?5,00,000/- with a promise to secure a job, which he failed to fulfill. The High Court concluded that this prima facie indicated offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. 4. Application of Section 216 of the CrPC in Altering or Adding Charges: Section 216 of the CrPC allows courts to alter or add charges at any time before judgment. The provision ensures that any omission in framing charges can be rectified based on material brought on record during the trial. The High Court's direction to frame additional charges was found to be in line with the powers granted under Section 216, as the additional charge-sheet and witness statements provided sufficient material to justify the charges. 5. Prejudice to the Accused Due to Alteration or Addition of Charges: The court must ensure that no prejudice is caused to the accused when altering or adding charges. The High Court's decision was based on the presence of sufficient material linking the appellant to the alleged offences, and it was determined that the appellant would not be prejudiced by the addition of charges. The trial court was directed to proceed with the trial, ensuring a fair trial for the appellant. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to frame additional charges under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, dismissing the appeal. The trial proceedings were ordered to continue, ensuring that the appellant receives a fair trial with the added charges being considered. The judgment emphasized the court's power under Section 216 of the CrPC to alter or add charges and the necessity of evaluating material on record to determine the presence of ingredients constituting the alleged offences.
|
