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

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 the same person. One set of allegation is that of the offence of rape at Delhi and the other is of hurling abuses and threatening the appellant over phone when she was in her village in Chamoli. The issue before the Court was whether the offences complained of could form one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction so that they can be tried together. In order to determine what would constitute 'same transaction' the Court referred to its judgment in Mohan Baitha And Ors. v. State of Bihar And Anr. which was subsequently relied upon in Anju Chaudhary v. State of UP And Anr. It noted that there is no formula of universal application to determine when two or more acts could be considered to constitute the 'same transaction'. The Court was of the view that though the determination of the same is a pure question of fact, certain core elements like proximity of time, unity of proximity of place, continuity of action and community of purpose or design can be considered. It opined -

"However, even while pointing out that the question as to whether a series of acts are so connected together as to form the same transaction is purely a question of fact, this Court has indicated the core elements like proximity of time, unity or proximity of place, continuity of action and community of purpose or design, which are of relevant considerations and when these factors are applied to common sense and ordinary use of language, the vexed question of 'same transaction' could be reasonably determined."

Applying the same to the facts of the present case, the Court noted that the sexual offence took place at Delhi in February/March, 2016 whereas the other offences took place around November, 2016 at Chamoli. Therefore, they cannot be said to be proximate in time or place. Moreover the alleged act of rape was completed in Delhi, as there was no allegation of continuance of such activity at Chamoli and there was also no further threat to submit to such activity when the appellant was in Chamoli. Therefore, the Court held that the two sets of offences are just like chalk and cheese and do not form the same transaction.

It categorically rejected the submission of the appellant that the subsequent trial for offences under Section 504 and 506 was vitiated. It refused to subject the respondent no. 2 to re-trial as the same would be in derogation of the principle of double jeopardy enshrined in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of the Cr.P.C.

Case Name: Ms. P XXX v. State of Uttarakhand And Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 554

Case No. and Date: Criminal Appeal No. 903 of 2022 | 16 June 2022

Corum: Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath

Counsels for the appellant: Mr. Abhimanyu Jhamba, Adv., Ms. Thonpinao Thangal, Adv., Mr. Hage Nanya, Adv., Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR

Counsels for the respondents: Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, AOR, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Adv., Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv., Mr. Satya Kam Sharma, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Adv., Mr. Deb Deepa Majumdar, Adv., Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR

Headnotes

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 220(1) - trial for more than one offence - 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 - it is not possible to enunciate any comprehensive formula of universal application for the purpose of determining whether two or more acts constitute the same transaction - the circumstances of a given case indicating proximity of time, unity or proximity of place, continuity of action and community of purpose or design are the factors for deciding whether certain acts form parts of the same transaction or not - a series of acts whether are so connected together as to form the same transaction is purely a question of fact to be decided on the aforesaid criteria. - for several offences to be part of the same transaction, the test which has to be applied is whether they are so related to one another in point of purpose or of cause and effect, or as principal and subsidiary, so as to result in one continuous action [Paragraph No. 20.1 to 20.3]

Constitution of India, Article 20(2) -  Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 300 - Principle of Double Jeopardy - The accused-respondent No. 2 having gone through the trial in relation to offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC and having been acquitted, cannot be subjected to another trial for the same charges on the same facts. Any such process would be in blatant disregard of the settled principles which disapprove double jeopardy and are precisely contained in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India as also Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment