Charge

By: Hifajatali Sayyed

 Introduction
• A charge is a precise formulation of a specific accusation
made against a person.
• One basic requirement of a fair trial in criminal jurisprudence is to
give precise information to the accused as to the accusation
against him.
• This is vitally important to the accused in the preparation of his
defence.
• In all trials under the Criminal Procedure Code the accused is
informed of the accusation in the beginning itself. Generally the
Code requires that the accusations are to be formulated and
reduced to writing with great precision and clarity. This
"charge" is then to be read and explained to the accused person.
 Introduction
 V. C. Shukla vs State (AIR 1980 SC 962)
• In this case, the Court stated that charge serves the purpose of
notice or intimation to the accused, drawn up according to
specific language of law, giving clear and unambiguous or
precise notice of the nature of accusation that the accused is called
upon to meet in the course of trial.
• At the stage of framing charge the Court has to apply its mind to
the question whether or not there is any ground for
presuming the commission of the offence by the accused. As
framing of charge affects a person's liberty substantially, need for
proper consideration of material warranting such order should be
emphasized.
 Contents of Charge
• There is no particular definition of charge but section 2 (b) of CrPC
states that ―charge includes any head of charge when the charge
contains more heads than one.
• The contents of charge are given u/s 211 of CrPC.
• Sec 211 (1) states that every charge under this Code shall state
the offence with which the accused is charged.
• Sec 211 (2) states that if the law which creates the offence gives
it any specific name, the offence may be described in the charge by
that name only.
• Eg: A is accused of murder. The charge may state that A
committed murder without reference to the definition of that
crime under IPC.
 Contents of Charge
• Sec 211 (3) states that if the law which creates the offence does
not give it any specific name, so much of the definition of
the offence must be stated as to give the accused notice of
the matter with which he is charged.

• Eg: A is charged u/s 184 of IPC with intentionally obstructing a

sale of property offered for sale by the lawful authority of public
servant. The charge should state that A committed the offence of
Obstructing sale of property offered for sale by authority
of public servant u/s 184 of IPC.
 Contents of Charge
• Sec 211 (4) states that the law and section of the law against
which the offence is said to have been committed shall be mentioned
in the charge.

• Eg: A is charged for the offence of Resistance or obstruction to

lawful apprehension of another person. The charge may state
that A committed Resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension
of another person under section 225 of Indian Penal Code.
 Contents of Charge
• Sec 211 (5) states that the fact that the charge is made is
equivalent to a statement that every legal condition required
by law to constitute the offence charged was fulfilled in the
particular case.
• Eg: A is charged with the murder of B. This is equivalent to a
statement that A's act fell within the definition of murder
given in section 300 of the Indian Penal Code; that it did not fall
within any of the general exceptions of the said Code; and that
it did not fall within any of the five exceptions to section
300, or that, if it did fall within Exception 1 (Grave and sudden
provocation), then one of the three provisos to that exception
applied to it.
 Contents of Charge
• Sec 211 (6) states that the charge shall be written in the
language of the Court. Sec 272 empowers the State Government
to determine the language of each court within the State other
than the High Court.
 Eg: Charges with One Head:
• I, Mr. ____, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga
Reddy, hereby charge you Mr. ____as follows:
That you, on or about the ……day of….., at …….., waged war against
the Government of India and thereby committed an offence
punishable under section 121 of the Indian Penal Code, and within
the cognizance of this Court.
And I hereby direct that you be tried by this Court on the said charge.
(Signature and seal of the Magistrate)
 Contents of Charge
 Eg: Charges with Two or more Heads:
• I, Mr. ___, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy,
hereby charge you Mr. ____as follows:
First—That you, on or about the …..day of….. , at…. , committed murder by
causing the death of Mr. ___ and thereby committed an offence punishable
under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and within the cognizance of
the Court of Session.
Secondly—That you, on or about the ….day of….. , at….. , by causing the death of
Mr. ___, committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and thereby
committed an offence punishable under section 304 of the Indian Penal
Code, and within the cognizance of the Court of Session.
And I hereby direct that you be tried by the said Court on the said charge.
(Signature and seal of the Magistrate)
 Contents of Charge
• Sec 211 (7) deals with charges for offences liable for
enhanced punishment by reason of previous conviction.

• It states that if the accused, having been previously convicted of

any offence, by reason of such previous conviction, is liable
to enhanced punishment, or to punishment of a different kind,
for a subsequent offence, and it is intended to prove such previous
conviction for the purpose of affecting the punishment which the
Court may think fit to award for the subsequent offence, the fact,
date and place of the previous conviction shall be stated in
the charge.
 Contents of Charge
• The purpose of Sec 211 (7) is to inform the accused adequately
about the allegations regarding previous convictions which
would expose him to enhance punishment if found guilty of
offence charged.

• Eg: Sec 354-D of IPC states that whoever commits the offence of
stalking shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to three years,
and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or
subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to five years, and
shall also be liable to fine.
 Contents of Charge
• This rule is more often invoked when the prosecution desires to
bring the case u/s 75 of IPC for enhanced punishment.

• Sec 75 of IPC provides that if someone has been convicted for

such an offence under Chapters XII (Offences relating to coin
and Government stamps) and XVII (Offences against property) of
the Indian Penal Code which is punishable with imprisonment of
three years or more, and again commits such an offence under
either of these chapters which is punishable with imprisonment of
three years or more, for the second offence he shall be subject
to imprisonment for life or imprisonment up to 10 years.

• This provision is enacted to deal with habitual offenders.

 Contents of Charge
 Eg: Charges For Theft After Previous Conviction:
• I, Mr. ____, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kukatpally, hereby charge you
Mr. ____as follows:
That you, on or about the ……day of….., at …….., committed theft, and thereby
committed an offence punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code,
and within the cognizance of this Court. And you, the said Mr. ___, stand
further charged that you, before the committing of the said offence,
that is to say, on the day of ……….., had been convicted by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Rajendranagar of an offence punishable under
Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code with imprisonment for a term of
three years, that is to say, the offence of house-breaking by night (sec
456), and that you are thereby liable to enhanced punishment under section 75
of the Indian Penal Code.
And I hereby direct that you be tried.
 Particulars as to Time, Place and Person
 Sec 212 of CrPC specifies about mentioning of particulars as to
time, place and person:

• It states that the charge shall contain such particulars as to the

time and place of the alleged offence, and the person against
whom, or the thing in respect of which, it was committed, as are
reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter
with which he is charged.

• This rule is to an extent relaxed in a case of criminal breach

of trust or of dishonest misappropriation.
 Particulars as to Time, Place and Person
 Sec 212 of CrPC specifies about mentioning of particulars as to
time, place and person:

• When the accused is charged with criminal breach of trust or

dishonest misappropriation of money or other movable
property, it shall be sufficient to specify the gross sum or, as
the case may be, describe the movable property in respect of which
the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the dates
between which the offence is alleged to have been
committed, without specifying particular items or exact dates.

• This rule is applicable only in case of criminal breach of trust or

dishonest misappropriation.
 Manner of committing offence
 Sec 213 of CrPC talks about; when manner of committing offence
must be stated in the charge:
• When the nature of the case is such that the particulars mentioned in
sections 211 and 212 do not give the accused sufficient notice of
the matter with which he is charged, the charge shall also contain
such particulars of the manner in which the alleged offence
was committed as will be sufficient for that purpose.
• Eg: A is accused of giving false evidence at a given time and place.
The charge must set out that portion of the evidence given by A
which is alleged to be false.
• A is accused of cheating B at a given time and place. The charge must
set out the manner in which A cheated B.
 Manner of committing offence
• Eg: A is accused of the murder of B at a given time and place. The
charge need not state the manner in which A murdered B.

• A is accused of theft of a certain article at a certain time and place.

The charge need not set out the manner in which the theft was
effected.
 Interpreting the Words used in the Charge

• Section 214 of CrPC gives a rule for interpreting the words used in
the charge:

• It provides that in every charge words used in describing an

offence shall be deemed to have been used in the sense
attached to them respectively by the law under which such
offence is punishable.

• Eg: If the accused is charged u/s 302 of IPC for murder, then the
word “murder” used here will have the same meaning as
defined by Indian Penal Code.
 Effect of Error on Charge
• Section 215 of CrPC deals with the effect of error in charge.

• In general, an error in charge is not material unless it can be

shown that the accused was in fact misled by such error or
omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice.

• The mere omission to frame a charge or a mere defect in the

charge is no ground for setting aside a conviction.

• Procedural laws are designed to promote the ends of justice &

not to frustrate them by mere technicalities.

• The object of the section is to prevent failure of justice where

there is some breach of the rules in the formulation of the
charge.
 Effect of Error in Charge
• Eg: A is charged with the murder of Karan Sharma on the 21st
January, 2015. In fact, the murdered person's name was Varun
Sharma, and the date of the murder was the 20th January, 2015.

• A was never charged with any murder but one, and had heard
the inquiry before the Magistrate, which referred exclusively to the
case of Varun Sharma.

• The Court may infer from these facts that A was not misled, and
that the error in the charge was immaterial.
 Effect of Error in Charge
• Eg: A was charged with murdering Varun Sharma on the 20th
January, 2015, and Karan Sharma (who tried to arrest him for that
murder) on the 21st January, 2015.

• When charged for the murder of Varun Sharma, he was tried for
the murder of Karan Sharma.

• The witnesses present in his defence were witnesses in the

case of Varun Sharma.

• The Court may infer from this that A was misled, and that the
error was material.
 Effect of Error in Charge
 Sec 464 of CrPC states that no sentence or order by a Court of
competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on
the ground of error or irregularity in the charge unless in
the opinion of Court of appeal it amounts to failure of justice.

 Willie (William) Slaney vs. State of M.P. (AIR 1956 SC 116)

• In this case, the appellant and his brother were put up for trial on
charges under sec 302 read with sec 34 of the Indian Penal
Code. The appellant was specifically charged with murder in
prosecution of the common intention.

• The brother was acquitted and the appellant was convicted under
sec 302 of IPC.
 Effect of Error in Charge
 Willie (William) Slaney vs. State of M.P. Cont…..
• The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence and
dismissed the appeal. So an appeal was preferred before the
Supreme Court.
• The issue before the Court is whether the omission to
frame an alternative charge only under sec 302 of IPC was
an illegality that vitiated the trial and invalidated the conviction.
• Here the Court held that the omission to frame an alternative charge
under sec 302 in the facts and circumstances of the case was not
an illegality that vitiated the trial but was a curable
irregularity as it had not occasioned any prejudice to the
appellant and the conviction was not liable to be set aside.
 Alteration of Charge
• According to sec 216 (1) of CrPC, any Court may alter or add to
any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.

• This provision gives power to remedy the defects in the framing and
non-framing of charge, discovered at any stage prior to judgment.

• Jasvinder Saini & Ors vs State (2013) 7 SCC 256

• In this case, the Supreme Court stated that all the courts have
unrestrained power to alter or add any charge provided such
addition or alteration is made before the judgment is
pronounced.
 Alteration of Charge
 Procedure to be followed after addition or alteration of charge:
• Sec 216 (2) of CrPC provides that every such alteration or
addition shall be read and explained to the accused so as to
enable him to prepare his defence.
• Sec 216 (3) states that if the alteration or addition to a charge is not
likely to prejudice the accused in his defence or the prosecutor
in the conduct of the case, the Court may immediately proceed
with the trial after such alteration or addition has been made.
• Sec 216 (4) states that if the alteration or addition to a charge is
likely to prejudice the accused in his defence or the prosecutor,
the Court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial
for such period as may be necessary.
 Alteration of Charge
 Procedure to be followed after addition or alteration of charge:

• Sec 216 (5) states that if the offence stated in the added charge is one
for the prosecution of which previous sanction is necessary, the
case shall not be proceeded with until such sanction is
obtained, unless sanction has been already obtained for a
prosecution on the same facts as those on which the altered or added
charge is founded.
 Alteration of Charge
 C.B.I vs Karimullah Osan Khan (2014) 11 SCC 538

• This case is relating to 1993 serial bomb blast in Mumbai. Here

the investigating authorities filed single charge-sheet in the
Designated Court against accused persons, of which 44 were
shown as absconding.

• Respondent who was absconding was, later, arrested in

Mumbai in 2008. During further investigation, the respondent
accused made a confession.

• On completion of investigation, a supplementary charge-sheet

was filed against the respondent accused.
 Alteration of Charge
 C.B.I vs Karimullah Osan Khan Cont.....

• Also the CBI filed an application u/s 216 of CrPC to alter the
charges. Here the Court rejected the application filed by CBI to
alter the charges stating that the application is moved after
closure of evidence and there is delay in the matter. So an appeal
was preferred against this order.

• Here the Court held that section 216 CrPC gives

considerable powers to the Trial Court, that is, even after
the completion of evidence, arguments heard and the
judgment reserved, it can alter and add any charge, subject to the
conditions mentioned therein.
 Alteration of Charge
 C.B.I vs Karimullah Osan Khan Cont.....

• The Court further added that the expressions at any time and before
the judgment is pronounced would indicate that the power is very
wide and can be exercised, in appropriate cases, in the
interest of justice, but at the same time, the Courts should also
see that its orders would not cause any prejudice to the accused.

• The Courts can exercise the power of addition or modification

of charges under section 216 CrPC, only when there exists some
material before the Court, which has some connection or link
with the charges sought to be amended, added or modified.
 Alteration of Charge
 Sec 217 of CrPC deals with recalling of witnesses when charge altered.
• It states that:
• Whenever a charge is altered or added to by the Court after the
commencement of the trial, the prosecutor and the accused shall
be allowed—
• (a) to recall or re-summon, and examine with reference to
such alteration or addition, any witness who may have been
examined, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing,
considers that the prosecutor or the accused, as the case may be, desires
to recall or re-examine such witness for the purpose of vexation or delay
or for defeating the ends of justice;
• (b) also to call any further witness whom the Court may think to be
material.
 Alteration of Charge
 Moosa Abdul Rahman vs State of Kerala (1982 CrLJ 1384)

• In this case the Court held that it is safer and desirable that the
courts do inquire to the prosecution or the accused, as to
whether they would like to exercise the right to recall or
resummons the witnesses or to have further witnesses
examined as provided in section 217 of CrPC.
 Joinder of Charges
 Joinder of Charges is covered under sections 218, 219, 220, 221,
223 of CrPC.

• Section 218 of the Code says that for every distinct offence of
which any person is accused there shall be a separate
charge and every such charge shall be tried separately.

• The object of Section 218 is to save the accused from being

embarrassed in his defence if distinct offences are lumped
together in one charge or in separate charges & are tried together.

• Another reason is that it might be difficult for the court trying

him on one of the charges not to be influenced by the evidence
against him on the other charges.
 Joinder of Charges
• Sec 218 further states that if the accused person, by an
application in writing, so desires and the Magistrate is of opinion
that such person is not likely to be prejudiced thereby, the
Magistrate may try together all or any number of the
charges framed against such person.

• The strict observance of Section 218 (1) may lead to

multiplicity of trials, therefore exceptions have been
provided in different provisions of CrPC.

• Section 218 lays down the basic rule that for every distinct
offence there must be separate charge and a separate trial
for each such charge but there are certain exceptions to it.
 Joinder of Charges
 Banwarilal & Ors vs Union of India (MANU/SC/0159/1962)

• In this case, the Court drew the distinction between distinct

offence and separate offence and stated that:

• For every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall
be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately

• The expression 'every distinct offence' must have a different

content from the expression 'every offence' or 'each offence'. A
separate charge is required for every distinct offence and
not necessarily for each separate offence. The question is,
what is meant by 'every distinct offence'?
 Joinder of Charges
 Banwarilal & Ors vs Union of India Cont……

• 'Distinct' means 'not identical'. It stresses characteristics that

distinguish, while the word 'separate' would stress the 'two
things not being the same.' Two offences would be distinct if
they be not in any way inter-related. If there be some inter-
relation, there would be not distinctness and it would depend on the
circumstances of the case in which the offences were committed
whether there be separate charges for those offences or not.
 Joinder of Charges
 There are certain exceptions to sec 218 which deals with joinder of
charges.

• Exception 1:

• Three offences of same kind within year may be charged

together.

• Sec 219 states that when a person is accused of more offences

than one of the same kind committed within the space of
twelve months from the first to the last of such offences, whether
in respect of the same person or not, he may be charged with,
and tried at one trial for any number of them not exceeding
three.
 Joinder of Charges
 Exception 2:

• Offences committed in course of same transaction can be

charged at one trial.

• Sec 220 (1) states that if, in one series of acts so connected
together as to form the same transaction, more offences
than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged
with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence.

• In Section 220 the word `transaction' means a group of facts

so connected together as to involve certain ideas, viz.,
unity, continuity and connection.
 Joinder of Charges
 Exception 2:

• Offences committed in course of same transaction can be

charged at one trial.

• Eg: A rescues B, a person in lawful custody, and in so doing

causes grievous hurt to C, a constable in whose custody B was.
A may be charged with, and convicted of, offences under sec 225
(Resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension of another person
or rescues other person from lawful custody) and sec 333
(Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his
duty) of the Indian Penal Code.
 Joinder of Charges
 Exception 2:

• The real and substantial test by which to determine whether several

offences are so connected as to form the same transaction depends
on whether they are so related to one another in point of
purpose, or as cause and effect, or as principal and
subsidiary acts as to constitute one continuous action.

• The fact that offences are committed at different times does

not necessarily show that they may not be so connected as
to fall within this section.
 Joinder of Charges
 Exception 2:

• Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P. 2004 (2) Crimes 317 (All)

• In this case, the accused persons fired shot on the

complainant and when the complainant was going to police
station to lodge FIR, dragged him in his house and caused
injuries to him, the acts of the accused were in the same series
of acts so as to form the same transaction, the accused could
be tried for offences under Ss. 147, 148, 149, 323 and 452 of IPC at
one trial
 Joinder of Charges
 Exception 3:

• Offences of criminal breach of trust or dishonest

misappropriation of property and their companion
offences of falsification of accounts to be tried at one trial:

• Many a times the offences of criminal breach of trust or dishonest

misappropriation of property is accompanied with the offence of
falsification of accounts, the latter offence is being committed
for the purpose of concealing the commission of the former
offence.

• So sec 220 (2) enables to have these offences tried at one trial.
 Joinder of Charges
 Exception 4:

• Same act falling under different definitions of offences,

such offences may be tried at one trial:

• Sec 220 (3) provides that if the acts alleged constitute an offence
falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in
force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished,
the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried
at one trial for, each of such offences.

• Eg: A wrongfully strikes B with a cane. A may be charged sec 352

(Punishment for assault) and sec 323 (Punishment for voluntarily
causing hurt) of IPC and may be tried at one trial.
 Joinder of Charges
 Exception 5:
• Acts forming an offence, also constituting different offences
when taken separately or in groups, all such offences to be
tried at one trial:
• Sec 220 (4) provides that if several acts, of which one or more than one
would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, also when
the act is combined with this offence amounts to different
offence, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at
one trial.
• Eg: A commits robbery on B, and in doing so voluntarily causes hurt to
him. A may be charged with, and convicted of, offences under sections
323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 392
(Punishment for robbery.) and 394 (Voluntarily causing hurt in
committing robbery) of the IPC and may be tried at one trial.
 Joinder of Charges
 Exception 6:
• Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed:
• Sec 221 provides for the situation in which the broad facts
concerning an offence are established by evidence, not all the
incidents and circumstances are known. In such cases it is
permissible to charge the accused with having committed all or any
of different but connected offences, and also to convict him of
an offence with which he has not been expressly charged.
• Eg: A is accused of an act which may amount to receiving stolen
property or criminal breach of trust or cheating. He may be
charged of any one of the offences or all the offences and
tried at one trial.
 Joinder of Charges
 Exception 6:

• Thakur Shah vs Emperor (1944) 45 CrLJ 126

• In this case, the Court stated that sec 221 gives wide powers to
the Courts to convict the accused of a crime not the subject of the
charge provided:

1. That the crime of which the accused was found guilty was
established by evidence and

2. That having regard to the information available to the

prosecuting authorities, it was doubtful which of one or
more offences would be established by the evidence.
 Joinder of Charges
 Exception 6:

• Achhut Rai vs Emperor (1926) 27 CrLJ 1351

• In this case, the Court stated that sec 221 is applicable in

respect of cognate offences such as theft and criminal breach of
trust, and that it does not refer to offences of a distinct
character such as murder and fabricating false evidence.

• Here the court stated that where the accused was charged with
murder u/s 302 of IPC he cannot be convicted u/s 194 for
fabricating false evidence.
 Joinder of Charges
 Exception 7:
• Certain persons may be charged jointly:
• The following persons may be charged and tried together, namely:—
a. persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of
the same transaction;
b. persons accused of an offence and persons accused of
abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence;
c. persons accused of more than one offence of the same kind,
within the meaning of section 219 committed by them jointly within
the period of twelve months;
d. persons accused of different offences committed in the course
of the same transaction;
 Joinder of Charges
 Exception 7:
• Certain persons may be charged jointly:
e. persons accused of an offence which includes theft, extortion,
cheating, or criminal misappropriation, and persons accused
of receiving or retaining, or assisting in the disposal or
concealment of, property possession of which is alleged to have been
transferred by any such offence committed by the first-named persons,
or of abetment of or attempting to commit any such offence;
f. persons accused of offences under sections 411 (Dishonestly
receiving stolen property) and 414 (Assisting in concealment of stolen
property) of the IPC or either of those sections in respect of stolen
property the possession of which has been transferred by one offence;
 Joinder of Charges
 Exception 7:

• Certain persons may be charged jointly:

g. persons accused of any offence under Chapter XII of the IPC

relating to counterfeit coin and persons accused of any other
offence under the said Chapter relating to the same coin, or of
abetment of or attempting to commit any such offence.

• It also states that, where number of persons charged, which do

not fall under the above categories, makes an application to
tried jointly. Here the Magistrate can proceed with the joint
trial, if he feels that it would not prejudicially affect the
trial.
 Joinder of Charges
 Sri Ram Varma vs State (AIR 1956 All 466.)

• In this case, the issue before the Court was that whether sections
219 to 221 and 223 are mutually exclusive or whether they can
be used to get a cumulative effect.

• Here the Court held that each of the four Sections 219, 220, 221 and
223 mentioned in Section 218 can individually be relied upon
as justifying a joinder of charges in respect of any trial. Use
cannot be made of two or more of these sections to justify
the joinder of charges in respect of any trial.