NDLI: Kalicharan & Ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 213, 313 – Failure to comply with the requirements of s. 213 and s. 313 – The Fast track Court convicted accused nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 for offences punishable u/s. 302, 307 of the IPC along with other sections – Allegation that accused no. 1, 3, 4 were armed with sharp edged weapons and accused no. 2 with pistol – It was also alleged that accused no. 2 murdered deceased (‘H’) by firing bullets from his pistol – Held: In cross-examination PW-1 stated that he was not aware whether bullets hit victim (‘H’) or not – PW-2 also came out with the same version – PW-3-doctor who performed post mortem stated that deceased suffered injuries caused by the sharp-edged weapons – He did not deposed any bullet injuries – In the instant case, not only that a charge was not framed on the allegation that the death was caused due to assault physically made by the accused, a misleading charge was framed that death was caused due to bullet injuries sustained by the bullets fired by the accused no. 2 with a pistol in his hand – ‘H’ did not receive any bullet injury – Still, the said allegation was put to all the accused in the examination u/s. 313 – Thus, not only that the charge framed was misleading, but most material circumstance brought on record against the accused in the evidence that ‘H’ died due to injuries caused by the attack made by accused nos. 1, 3 and 4 was not put any of the accused – Thus, not only that the charge was misleading but the accused had no opportunity to explain the circumstance in which ‘H’ was allegedly killed which was brought on record during the trial – Therefore, in the facts of the case, by reason of omission to frame a proper charge in terms of s. 213 of CrPC, and by reason of not putting important circumstances appearing in the evidence in the statement u/s. 313 caused serious prejudice to the accused.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Chapter XVII – Provisions regarding framing of charge – Held: The object of the said provisions is obviously to make the accused aware of the accusations against him on the basis of which the prosecution is seeking to convict him – The object of the provisions regarding the framing of charge is that accused should be in a position to effectively defend himself – An accused can properly defend himself provided he is clearly informed about the nature of the allegations against him before the actual trial starts – That is why there are elaborate provisions in CrPC in that behalf.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Omission to frame a charge or error in the charge – Power of Court of appeal – Held: When the Court of appeal is called upon to decide whether any failure of justice has been occasioned due to omission to frame a charge or error in the charge, the Court is duty bound to examine the entire record of the trial including all exhibited documents, depositions and the statements of the accused recorded u/s. 313.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 313 – Requirement of – Held: The requirement of Section 313 CrPC is that the accused must be explained the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him so that accused can offer an explanation – After an accused is questioned under Section 313 CrPC, he is entitled to take a call on the question of examining defence witnesses and leading other evidence – If the accused is not explained the important circumstances appearing against him in the evidence on which his conviction is sought to be based, the accused will not be in a position to explain the said circumstances brought on record against him – He will not be able to properly defend himself.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay.S. Oka
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 1277
Petitioner	Kalicharan & Ors
Respondent	State Of Uttar Pradesh
SCR	[2022] 16 S.C.R. 56
Judgement Date	2022-12-14
Case Number	122

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Kalicharan & Ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Please Log-in to view this content

Iqram Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors

Lajpat & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Reshma Bano Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Chani Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Anil Kumar @ Badka & Ors.

Manno Lal Jaiswal Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Geeta & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh and Ors.

Fakhrey Alam Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Kalicharan & Ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Kalicharan & Ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Iqram Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors

Lajpat & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Reshma Bano Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Chani Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Anil Kumar @ Badka & Ors.

Manno Lal Jaiswal Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Geeta & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh and Ors.

Fakhrey Alam Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Kalicharan & Ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh