Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In view of the directions given by this Court, the applications for modification of the charge and discharge were filed and, therefore, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the State being devoid of substance, are rejected.

14. Shri Rajendra Singh, Senior Counsel, for the applicants/accused, vehemently argued that charges framed against the applicants, are illegal and are in contravention of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the learned counsel, there is a violation of Section 218, of the Code of Criminal Procedure which requires that there shall be separate charge for every distinct offence and each charge shall be tried separately subject to the provisions of Sections 219, 220, 221 and 223 of the Code. It is further submitted that Section 219 of the Code permits an accused to be charged and tried for offences not exceeding three in number, provided these three offences are of the same kind and are alleged to have been committed within a space of 12 months from the first and the last. However, the charges framed being indiscriminate charges, are illegal and highly prejudicial to the applicants/accused. The learned senior counsel took me through the relevant provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, viz. Section 219, (corresponding old Section 234), Section 220, (corresponding old Section 235), Section 221, (corresponding old Section 236) and Section 222, (correspondinng old Section 237).

17. Shri Gorde, the learned special prosecutor, controverting the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the applicants, referred to Sections 218, 219 and 220 of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to Shri Gorde, the learned counsel for the State, the applicant No. 2 is charged for committing the rape on three girls. The allegations being of rape committed on all three prosecutrix, the acts form one series of acts and so connected together as to form the same transaction and, therefore, joint trial is permissible. The learned counsel also relied on the case of Aftab Ahmad Khan v. State of Hyderabad wherein Their Lordships observed :

In addition to these mandatory requirements, Section 218, of the Code very clearly specifies that there shall be a separate charge for every distinct offence with which a person is charged and that an accused shall be tried separately in respect of every such charge. Section 218, of the Code prescribes the situation in which three offences of the same kind within a year may be charged together, and Section 220, further prescribes that at one trial, an accused may be tried for more than one offence with the series of acts so connected together to form the same transaction."