Karnataka High Court
Sri Manjunath vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 June, 2018
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.542/2018
Between :
Manjunath
S/o. Siddappa,
Aged about 31 years,
Occ: Serviceman,
R/o. Hombalaghatta Village,
Harapanahalli Taluk,
Davangere District. .. Petitioner
( By Sri C.H. Jadhav, Sr. Counsel for
Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, Advocate)
And :
The State of Karnataka,
By Harapanahalli Police Station,
Davangere District-583131,
Represented by
The State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bangalore-560001. .. Respondent
(By Sri S. Rachaiah, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying to set aside the order dated:07.12.2017 passed by
the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in
S.C.No.106/2015 and consequently quash the proceedings
2
pertaining to alteration/framing of additional charges
thereon.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission on this
day, the Court made the following :
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Prl.District & Sessions Judge, at Davanagere, in Sessions Case No.106/2015, dated 7th December 2017, wherein the learned Sessions Judge has exercised the powers under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. and added an additional charge against the accused person for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The respondent-Police have charge sheeted the accused person for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B and 201 of IPC. Subsequently, during the course of framing of charges, it appears, the Court has framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201 of IPC. After the examination of 16 3 witnesses as PWs.1 to 16 and marking of documents at Exs.P-1 to P-23, the learned Public Prosecutor has filed an application for framing of additional charges for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, after hearing the accused, who has filed serious objections to the said application for framing of additional charges, and after hearing in detail, the Court felt that an additional charge for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, has to be framed and accordingly, by exercising the power under Section 216 of Cr.P.C., the Court has framed additional charges for the above said offences.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the first instance submitted that it is prerogative of the Court to frame charges or alter the charges and there is no vested right to anybody to file any application for framing of additional charges or alteration of the charges. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied 4 upon a decision of the Apex Court reported in the case of K.Kartikalakshmi -vs- Sri Ganesh and another { (2017) 3 SCC 347}, wherein the Apex Court has observed that "Power of Court under Section 216, to alter or add any charge - Scope of, and manner of exercise of - At whose instance may such power be exercised - Principles summarised -
Maintainability of revision when application for alternation/addition of charge is filed by any party. It is observed by the Apex Court that "If there was an omission in framing of charge and if it comes to knowledge of Court trying the offence, the power is always vested in Court, as provided under Section 216, to either alter or add the charge and that such power is available with Court at any time before judgment is pronounced. It is an enabling provision for Court to exercise its power under certain contingencies which comes to its notice or brought to its notice. In such a situation, if it comes to the knowledge of Court that a necessity has arisen for the charge to be altered or added, it may do so on its own and no order need be passed for that purpose. After such alteration or addition, when the final decision is rendered, it will be open for parties to work out their remedies in accordance with law. It is clear that no party, neither de facto complainant nor accused nor prosecution, has any vested right to seek any addition or alteration of charge, because it is not provided under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. If such a course were to be permitted to be adopted by parties, then it will be well-nigh impossible for criminal 5 court to conclude its proceedings and concept of speedy trial will get jeopardised."
4. Placing reliance on the above said decision, the learned counsel strenuously contended that the above said application filed by the prosecution itself is devoid of merits and the learned Sessions Judge would not have entertained the said application at all. In order to answer this particular aspect, it is worth to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kantilal Chandulal Mehta -vs- State of Maharashtra and another (AIR 1970 SC 359), wherein the Apex Court has observed that "ample power has been given to the Courts to alter or amend the charge, provided that the accused has not to face a charge for a new offence or is not prejudiced either by keeping him in the dark about that charge or in not giving a full opportunity of meeting it and putting forward any defence open to him, on the charge finally preferred against him. The addition or alteration should not prejudice the accused and Court must exercise a sound and wise discretion in the matter after hearing both the parties to the proceedings."
5. On reading the above said two decisions, it is clear that no party has got a vested right to file an application or 6 the Court need not entertain any such application filed by the parties in order to afford a speedy justice to the parties. The Court itself can apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and if necessary, add or frame an additional charge by its own under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. But, the above said decisions of the Apex Court itself clears the doubt that in the event of Court does not apply its mind for the purpose of framing of additional charges, but, if it is brought to the notice of the Court by any of the parties to the proceedings that an additional charge has to be framed, then also the court can take that information to pass appropriate order. Therefore, it goes without saying that the Provision 216 of Criminal Procedure Code has given power to the Courts either to apply its own mind to the facts and circumstances available on record or it can also entertain the submissions made by the parties or if the fact that additional charge has to be framed is brought to the notice of the Court, such bringing of the factual aspects by any of the parties can be entertained by the Court. Therefore, the decision has to be understood in such a manner that in any 7 case, the Court shall not entertain the applications, as a matter of right by the parties, the parties to the proceedings can make submissions and the Cr.P.C. empowers the Courts to entertain the submissions made to the Court by means of bringing it to the notice of the Court that additional charge requires to be framed.
6. In another decision cited above, the Apex Court has also made it clear that, without bringing it to the notice of the accused, without causing prejudice to him, no additional or alteration of charge shall be made by the Courts. That goes without saying that if the factual aspects of the case for the purpose of framing additional charges were brought to the notice of the Court either on the basis of evidence or by way of submission to the Court, fullest opportunity should be given to the accused for the purpose of defending himself as to why the additional charges should not be framed against him. After providing such opportunity, the Court is empowered to pass appropriate order under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, Courts have all the powers 8 under the facts and circumstances of each case. Ultimately, both the judgments render a guideline that an opportunity should be given to the parties to the proceedings to bring it to the knowledge of the Court as and when required that an additional charge requires to be framed in such a case. In such an eventuality, as a matter of principles of natural justice, an opportunity should be given to the accused to defend himself as to why such charges should not be framed. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has entertained the application in this particular case, which can very well be treated as a factual aspect brought to the notice of the Court by the prosecution, and the learned Sessions Judge has applied the principles of natural justice, provided fullest opportunity to the accused and after hearing, has taken the decision to frame charges under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, I do not find any strong reasons to interfere with the orders on this point is concerned.
7. The next point raised by the learned counsel is that there are absolutely no grounds available for the purpose of 9 framing the above said charges. He has brought to the notice of this Court the statement of the witnesses, as well as, post mortem report, inquest report and first information report. Of course, in these documents there are no sufficient materials to come to a definite conclusion that whether the offences fall under Sections 306, 304-B or 302 of IPC, because, the evidence recorded by the Court subsequently, i.e., the evidence of PWs.1 to 16, particularly the evidence of the doctor, who has categorically stated in his evidence that he found as many as 13 injuries on the dead body of the deceased and he has also expressed his doubt with regard to the ante-mortem or post-mortem nature of those injuries. Further added to that, other witnesses have also stated about the overt act of the accused person regarding the injuries sustained by the deceased. Therefore, the Court has expressed its doubt only as to whether the offences fall under the provisions punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Again the Court has to re-appreciate the entire evidence after completion of the prosecution evidence and after providing 10 opportunity to the accused to cross-examine them the Court has to give its opinion whether it falls under Section 304-B, 306 or under Section 302 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, in view of the subsequent evidence placed before the Court, even juxtapose considering other aspects, that the charge sheet papers, the Court has expressed its doubt at that particular stage. It has not given any of its finding that the allegations falls under Section 302 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, when the Court incurrs a strong doubt regarding the circumstances that which are the charges that has to be leveled against the accused persons, it is better to frame charges on all the counts. If for any reason, after re-appreciating the evidence on record, if the Court is of the opinion that the lesser offence has been committed even though the charges have been framed for the higher offences, the Court can very well record its finding on the lesser offence. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the trial Court only expressed its strong doubt only on the basis of specific evidence recorded to add the charges against the 11 persons on the basis of the materials on record. Though there is some doubt arises when compared to the charges leveled by the Court with that of the charge sheet papers and the evidence, in my opinion, it is safe enough for the Court to frame such charges. Ultimately, the Court can take a decision on the appreciation of the entire evidence on record. Therefore, I am opinion that no such strong ground has been made out in this particular case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
Hence, I am of the opinion that the petition is devoid of merits and same is liable to the dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *bk/-