Charge Once Framed Must Lead To Acquittal/Conviction, Section 216 CrPC Doesn’t Permit Deletion Of Same: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has recently observed that a charge, once framed, must lead to either acquittal or conviction at the conclusion of the trial as Section 216 of CrPC does not permit the deletion of the charge. The bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed thus while dismissing a revision plea filed by one Dev Narain challenging an order passed by Additional District...
The Allahabad High Court has recently observed that a charge, once framed, must lead to either acquittal or conviction at the conclusion of the trial as Section 216 of CrPC does not permit the deletion of the charge.
The bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed thus while dismissing a revision plea filed by one Dev Narain challenging an order passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Chitrakoot rejecting his application under Section 216 CrPC for alteration of charges framed against him.
Essentially, the revisionist has been charged under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323 IPC and 3/4 of the D.P. Act for allegedly causing the dowry death of the deceased.
It is the case against him is that he is the brother-in-law of the deceased who died inside her home and on the same day, the dead body of her husband was found near the railway track and even the keys of the house in which the dead body of the deceased was found was recovered from the dead body of deceased's husband in the same sequence of the evidence.
Earlier, the revisionist/accused moved an application for discharge before the trial court, which was rejected by the order in July 2017 and the case was fixed for prosecution evidence. Challenging the said order, he moved the HC, wherein the order rejecting his discharge application was upheld and his plea was dismissed by giving him the liberty to move an application for alteration of charge under Section 216 CrPC before the trial court.
Following this, he moved an application under the said section, however, the HC noted that in that application, he had essentially prayed for discharge stating that he may be discharged from charged penal sections and the charges levelled against him be quashed.
Noting thus, the Court noted that the trial court, in the exercise of its powers under Section 216 CrPC, cannot delete the charges framed by it for the said offences as the criminal procedure code does not confer such powers on the court.
The Court also noted that the discharge application moved by the revisionist has already been dismissed and said order has attained finality.
Further, relying upon the Top Court’s judgment in the case of Vibhuti Narayan Chaubey Alias .. vs State Of UP 2002, the Court observed that Section 216 of CrPC does not provide for deletion of a charge and that the word "delete" had intentionally not being used by the legislature.
Consequently, finding the revision plea to be devoid of force, the Court upheld the lower court’s order and hence, it dismissed the revision plea.
Appearances
Counsel for Applicant: V.K. Ojha, Abhay Raj Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party: AGA Deepak Kapoor
Case Title: Dev Narain vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1026 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 294