Section 217 CrPC: Opportunity to Recall/Re-examine Witnesses Must be Given to Both Sides Upon Alteration of Charges
The Supreme Court of India has held that under Section 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), when charges are altered during a trial, both the prosecution and the defense must be given the opportunity to recall or re-examine witnesses pertaining to the altered charges. The Court also emphasized that reasons for altering the charges must be meticulously recorded in the judgment.
The Ruling
The bench, comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Satish Chandra Sharma, stated, “A Court may alter or add to any charge before judgment is pronounced but when charges are altered, opportunity must be given under Section 217 of the Cr.P.C., both to the Prosecution and the defense, to recall or re-examine witnesses in reference to such altered charges. More importantly, in case, charges are altered by the Court, reasons for the same must be recorded in the judgment.”
Case Background
The Supreme Court delivered this ruling while overturning the conviction of the accused, thereby acquitting them. The initial charges were under Section 302 read with Section 149 (Common Object) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Later, the charges were altered to Section 302 read with Section 34 (Common Intention) of the IPC. The alteration was neither read out and explained to the accused, nor were the reasons for this alteration recorded in the judgment.
Legal Infirmities
The court identified two critical legal infirmities:
- Non-communication of Altered Charges: The altered charges were not read out and explained to the accused.
- Lack of Evidence for Common Intention: The prosecution failed to provide evidence establishing a common intention among the accused.
Drawing reference from the case of Rohtas v. State of Haryana, the court reiterated that altering charges from ‘common object’ to ‘common intention’ necessitates the prosecution to establish the existence of common intention with substantial evidence, as the two cannot be equated.
“The Court also has the responsibility to analyze and assess the evidence before convicting a person with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC. Importantly, a mere common intention per se may not attract Section 34 IPC without action in furtherance of such common intention,” the court observed.
Implications
This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to procedural fairness during criminal trials. The failure to properly communicate altered charges and the lack of evidence connecting the accused to a common intention led the court to reverse the conviction, giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused.
Legal Representation
Counsels for Appellant(s):
- Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
- Ms. Asha Upadhyay, Adv.
- Mr. Gyanendra Kumar Pandey, Adv.
- Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
- Mr. R. K. Kapoor, Adv.
- Ms. Kheyali Singh, AOR
- Ms. Krishna Joshi, Adv.
Counsels for Respondent(s):
- Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, A.A.G.
- Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR
- Ms. Mrigna Shekhar, Adv.
Case Title
Case Title: MADHUSUDAN & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
For a detailed analysis and to read/download the full order, click here.
