1988 (9) TMI 368 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Defect in the framing of charges.
2. Failure to discuss evidence under different heads of charges.
3. Prejudice and failure of justice due to irregular charges.
4. Applicability of Sections 215, 221, and 464 of the CrPC.
5. High Court's error in directing a retrial.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Defect in the framing of charges:
The High Court found that the charges framed by the Additional Sessions Judge were materially defective. Specifically, the principal accused, Laisal Haque, was charged under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, alleging a common object to kill Gulam Rabbani and injure others. However, Haque was also charged under Section 302 IPC simpliciter without making it an alternative charge. The High Court deemed this as a fundamental defect that led to a failure of justice.

2. Failure to discuss evidence under different heads of charges:
The High Court observed that the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge was infirm as it did not separately discuss the evidence under different heads of charges. The trial judge failed to specify which accused caused hurt to whom while convicting under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC. This lack of detailed analysis contributed to the High Court's decision to order a retrial.

3. Prejudice and failure of justice due to irregular charges:
The High Court noted that the irregular and "rolled up" charges prejudiced the accused, leading to a failure of justice. The charges were vague and indefinite, particularly the use of the term "injure others" without specifying the names of the injured persons. This vagueness was seen as causing serious prejudice to the accused during the trial.

4. Applicability of Sections 215, 221, and 464 of the CrPC:
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's view on the defectiveness of the charges. It emphasized that Section 221 of the CrPC, which allows for framing charges when it is doubtful which of several offenses has been committed, applied in this case. The Court highlighted that Section 215 states no error in the charge shall be material unless it misled the accused and caused a failure of justice. Similarly, Section 464 provides that no finding or sentence shall be invalid due to any error in the charge unless it caused a failure of justice. The Supreme Court found no material on record indicating that the accused were misled or that there was a failure of justice.

5. High Court's error in directing a retrial:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for ordering a retrial without examining the merits of the case. It stated that the High Court failed to appreciate that an appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC could not interfere with the acquittal of 26 other accused who were not parties to the appeal. The Supreme Court noted that a retrial would necessitate a de novo trial against all 42 accused, which was not justified without a proper appeal by the State Government against the acquittals.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment and order, and remitted the case back to the High Court for a fresh decision on merits after notice to the parties. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court must consider the appeals properly and not order a retrial unless there was clear evidence of a failure of justice due to the framing of charges.