CrPC Section 220 - How To Decide If Two Or More Acts Form "Same Transaction" For Joint Trial? Supreme Court Explains

The Supreme Court, on Thursday, reiterated that whether two or more acts constitute the same transaction for the purpose of being tried together under Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), is purely a question of fact. The reasonable determination of the same would however depend on elements like proximity of time, unity or proximity of place, continuity of action and community of purpose or design. A Bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath dismissed an appeal assailing the order of the Uttarakhand High Court, which had upheld the decision of the Court of Sessions Judge, Chamoli to discharge the accused in respect of a set of offences (S. 376 IPC) for want of jurisdiction. The Sessions Court was of the opinion that the offences alleged by the appellant (one set under S. 376 IPC; and the other under S. 504 and 506 IPC] did not meet the requirement of Section 220 Cr.P.C. for being tried together. They did not form the 'same transaction' as contemplated in Section 220(1) which reads as under - 220. Trial for more than one offence - (1) 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.Though it upheld the order of the Courts below, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court had disposed of the revision petition in haste and based on erroneous assumption that the revision petition before it was challenging the order of acquittal in relation to offences under Section 504 and 506. Factual Background On 13.11.2015, the appellant and the respondent no. 2 were engaged to be married, at their village in District Chamoli. Following their engagement, the appellant went to visit her fiancé (respondent no. 2) in Delhi at his invitation. She alleged that during her visit to Delhi, in February, 2016, she was subjected to coercive sexual intercourse by the respondent no. 2. Thereafter, purportedly, he had demanded Rs. 25 lakhs to go through with the wedding. Consequently, the appellant's mother filed a complaint. The respondent no. 2 filed an affidavit at the police station vouching to marry the appellant in December, 2016. Around the month of November, 2016, he threatened to kill the appellant and hurled abuses at her when she was in Chamoli, over a telephone call. Eventually, investigation was completed and a charge sheet was filed for offences under Section 376, 504 and 506 IPC. As the matter came up before the Court of Sessions Judge, Chamoli on the question of framing of charges, it discharged the respondent no. 2 in respect to the offence under Section 376 IPC for lack of territorial jurisdiction. A revision petition was filed before the Uttarakhand High Court, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the offences under Section 506 and 504 were tried by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class and the respondent no. 2 was acquitted. Issue before the Supreme Court Whether the offences under Sections 376, 504 and 506 IPC, formed 'one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction' for the purpose of trial together in terms of Section 220 CrPC read with Section 184 CrPC? Contentions raised by the appellant On the issue for consideration, the Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the Courts below had not considered that the offences under Sections 376, 504 and 506 formed a part of the same transaction and could not have been tried separately. It was emphasised that the respondent no. 2 ought to have been put to trial for the offence under Section 376, considering the consistent stand of the appellant in this regard. Arguments were also made assailing the subsequent acquittal for offences under Section 504 and 506 IPC. The High Court's order was challenged for the lack of reasoning and also for wrongly recording that the respondent no. 2 was acquitted of the offence under Section 376 IPC. Contentions raised by the respondents The Counsel for the State supported the submission made by the Counsel for the appellant. The Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2, contended that separate charges are required to be framed for separate offences and therefore the alleged offence of rape committed in Delhi could not have been tried by the Court of Sessions, Chamoli. It was further submitted that the offence of rape not being a continuing offence, the subsequent alleged threats cannot be said to be a series of acts forming the same transaction. He raised several other contentions in an attempt to dispel the allegations made by the appellant. Analysis by the Supreme Court The Court observed that in the facts of the present case, the complaint raised allegations of different offences, of different nature and at different places of occurrence, but committed by the same person and against...

CrPC Section 220 - How To Decide If Two Or More Acts Form "Same Transaction" For Joint Trial? Supreme Court Explains

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags