[S.218 CrPC] Irregularity On Account Of Misjoinder Of Charges Doesn't Vitiate Conviction Unless Miscarriage Of Justice Proved: Kerala High Court

Justice P G Ajithkumar said no prejudice was caused to the accused and separate evidence was brought before the Court to prove separate charges. It stated that the accused was given ample opportunity to challenge the evidence presented before the Court and there was no failure of justice, despite misjoinder of charges.

“From the nature of evidence let in by the prosecution, which is adverted to above, it is quite clear that separate evidence was brought in concerning each head of the charges. No occasion resulting in miscarriage of justice or prejudice to the appellant is pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae. On an anxious consideration of the evidence on record, I am convinced that there occurred no failure of justice on account of such a misjoinder of charge. The appellant obtained enough opportunity to challenge the evidence of each witness and there was no overlapping or mixing up of facts. In the circumstances, the conviction of the appellant is quite legal; in spite of such a misjoinder of charges. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction.”

The appellant was the sole accused and was convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 354 (assault or criminal force to assault modesty of woman) and 448 (punishment for house trespass) of the IPC.

The allegation was that on May 02, 2005 the appellant trespassed into the house and tried to outrage the modesty of a woman (PW2). It was further alleged that on May 03, 2005, the appellant stabbed PW1. The Trial Court convicted the appellant in a joint trial and he has preferred appeal before the High Court alleging misjoinder of charges.

The Amicus Curiae Advocate Rebin Vincent Gralan submitted before the Court that the conviction was bad and illegal due to the misjoinder of charges under Section 218 of the CrPC. Section 218 CrPC provides for separate charges for separate offences. It was submitted that the appellant was tried jointly in a single trial for two distinct offences.

Public Prosecutor Sheeba Thomas submitted that both incidents on the 02^nd and 03^rd of May were closely connected. It was submitted that the first incident was causation for the second incident and hence there would be a joinder of both charges and a joint trial would be permitted under Section 220. Section 220 CrPC pertains to joint trial for different offences.

The Court found that PW2 is the younger sister of PW1. It stated that PW1 was stabbed by the appellant using his knife when he asked him about trespassing and outraging the modesty of PW2.

It stated that Section 220 (1) CrPC permits one trial for different offences if those offences were connected together to form part of the same transaction. In the facts of the case, the Court stated that there was a misjoinder of charges since offences were not so connected together for forming part of the same transaction. It said, “The question is whether on account of misjoinder of charges the conviction is vitiated”

The Court stated that as per Section 464 (1) CrPC, the trial cannot be said to be vitiated on account of misjoinder of charges unless there was a failure of justice. It said: “On a reading of sub-section (1) of Section 464 it is explicit that misjoinder of charges is an irregularity. It is explained that unless there occasioned failure of justice, an irregularity on account of misjoinder of charges does not invalidate a conviction.”

The Court stated that no failure of justice occurred since the prosecution had proved the crime committed by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt by separately giving evidence for different charges.

Accordingly, the Court held that there was no illegality in the conviction by the Trial Court.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 182

Case title: Santhosh @ Chandu v State

Case number: CRL.APPEAL NO. 918 OF 2007

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment