Court Trying The Offence Best Suited To Alter Or Modify Charges Already Framed At An Appropriate Stage: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Observing that the trial court is best placed to alter or modify charges at an appropriate stage, Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to interfere in the trial court’s order that framed charges against an accused under Section 304 of IPC instead of Section 304-A IPC.

The charges were framed by the Additional Sessions Judge for causing the death of two individuals by alleged speedy, rash and negligent driving of the accused.

The single-judge bench of Justice Pranay Verma added that the petitioner/accused would not be put to any prejudice merely because the charge has been initially framed against him under Section 304 Part II of IPC. According to the High Court, even if the trial court decides to alter the charge to Section 304 A IPC later, the petitioner/accused would not be adversely affected.

“…. If in the course of the trial, it comes to the conclusion that the evidence produced makes out a lesser offence than the one regards with charges have been framed against the petitioner, it shall always be open for it to convict the petitioner for a lesser offence based on the evidence adduced before it. ...If the charge under Section 304-A of the IPC had been framed against him, the forum trying the charge might have been different which would however not cause any prejudice to him”, Justice Pranay Verma observed by stating that material produced by way of evidence at the trial stage will play a crucial role in any such scenarios.

The criminal revision petition was filed by the accused pursuant to the proceedings in ST No.65/2022 before the 6^th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore. He was accused of committing offences that fall within the purview of Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 and Sections 304, 308 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused had allegedly driven a motor vehicle through a residential area in a rash and negligent manner, thereby causing the death of two individuals. As per the prosecution, the accused who is allegedly the driver of the vehicle had immediately fled the place of occurrence.

The counsel for the petitioner had argued that even if the prosecution version of the case is assumed to be true, the petitioner/accused still lacked ‘the intention or knowledge of causing any bodily harm’ since the accident happened all of a sudden. Charged framed under Section 304 Part II of IPC and Section 308 wouldn’t prevail since the necessary ingredients of the offences entailed in those sections are not made out in this case; the charge should have been framed under Section 304-A at best, argued the counsel for the petitioner.

By placing reliance upon State of Maharashtra v. Salman Saleem Khan and Another (2004) 1 SCC 525, the single-judge bench asserted that the court trying the offence is the apt forum to determine whether charges already framed should be altered or not. In Salman Saleem Khan, the apex court had also confirmed that no prejudice whatsoever is caused to the parties as far as proceedings are concerned by virtue of framing of a charge either under Section 304-A or Section 304 Part II IPC. The only implication for the parties would have been that the forum trying the charge might have been different, which by itself, would not cause any prejudice.

The High Court refused to set aside the impugned order of framing charges by the Sessions Judge and concluded as follows:

“…The trial Court would proceed with the trial in accordance with law as laid down by the Supreme Court as aforesaid. It is however made clear that this Court has not made any observation as to the acceptability or otherwise of the material available on record nor has any opinion on the merits of the case been expressed. The observations herein are solely for the purpose of disposal of this petition.”

Case Title: Rajendra S/o Shri Sitaram Kushwah v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Case No: Criminal Revision No. 2461 of 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (MP)

Click Here To Read/Download Order