Saurabh v. State Of Haryana




   
 

 

  ! "#$%&%           '#  ()'

% *
+*
  !"!!#$% &'  !

!() #*$%%+$ !

,,,, +*
,- .

/0# -).  //& ' '


0"( 1!

-')#& # / //&  ) '  2!

   # //# !   & $ 3'  /  ' ") ) 4 "  # 516"
"   !

2$7 5  "
"   !

$7 5  

"
"5 

"
"  !2$7 8) %##'3  ''#   #  '#          )  #/  

 ' 9 '#  /  

 2!

$ 3    !0!:!:.$ % &'33&   !

'  #3'3)) !4)' $     ')/        .#)  #    !  0!:!  :.$ % &'# ; /   !4)$ '# 3/    !0!:!:.$ % &' 3)3' ! 4'  33./ '  3#  <   
!

-) '  2!

<

#3


      

     

 

    !

    "

")$' <

# 3 !" 

 

  - ) <  '  # '#  ! -   ) 
   
    



     # 1!

The following principles relating to sections 212, 215 and 464 of the Code, relevant to this case, become evident from the said enunciations:

(i) The object of framing a charge is to enable an accused to have a clear idea of what he is being tried for

and of the essential facts that he has to meet. The charge must also contain the particulars of date, time, place and person against whom the offence was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged.

(ii) The accused is entitled to know with certainty and accuracy, the exact nature of the charge against him, and unless he has such knowledge, his defence will be prejudiced. Where an accused is charged with having committed offence against one person but on the evidence led, he is convicted for committing offence against another person, without a charge being framed in respect of it, the accused will be prejudiced, resulting in a failure of justice. But there will be no prejudice or failure of justice where there was an error in the charge and the accused was aware of the error. Such knowledge can be inferred from the defence, that is, if the defence of the accused showed that he was defending himself against the real and actual charge and not the erroneous charge.

(iii) In judging a question of prejudice, as of guilt, the courts must act with a broad vision and look to the substance and not to the technicalities, and their main concern should be to see whether the accused had a fair trial, whether he knew what he was being tried for, whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him fairly and clearly, and whether he was given a full and fair chance to defend himself.

- )
  





    !"#

 #$ !  % & AIR 2010 SC 3786, this Court dealt with the aforementioned issue elaborately, and upon consideration of a large number of earlier judgments, held as under:

Therefore,.................. unless the convict is able to establish that defect in framing the charges has caused real prejudice to him and that he was not informed as to what was the real case against him and that he could not defend himself properly, no interference is required on mere technicalities. Conviction order in fact is to be tested on the touchstone of prejudice theory."

14. The defect in framing of the charges must be so serious that it cannot be covered under Sections 464/465 Cr.P.C., which provide that, an order of sentence or conviction shall not be deemed to be invalid only on the ground that no charge was framed, or that there was some irregularity or omission or misjoinder of charges, unless the court comes to the conclusion that there was also, as a consequence, a failure of justice. In determining whether any error, omission or irregularity in framing the relevant charges, has led to a failure of justice, the court must have regard to whether an objection could have been raised at an earlier stage, during the proceedings or not. While judging the question of prejudice or guilt, the court must bear in mind that every accused has a right to a fair trial, where he is aware of what he is being tried for and where the facts sought to be established against him, are explained to him fairly and clearly, and further, where he is given a full and fair chance to defend himself against the said charge(s).

15. The 'failure of justice' is an extremely pliable or facile expression, which can be made to fit into any situation in any case. The court must endeavour to find the truth. There would be 'failure of justice'; not only by unjust conviction, but also by acquittal of the guilty, as a result of unjust failure to produce requisite evidence. Of course, the rights of the accused have to be kept in mind and also safeguarded, but they should not be over emphasised to the extent of forgetting that the victims also have rights.

" '$ '   # //# !- 3   % &' 

 )' !-/ '3/# '   ! =# $<    # //#  )

)'&  # //# $'' ''#)#!- 3  ' ''  3 '# <  

   ) < % ' / ' /' $) /

; /)   < !-))

'.%

#* /$*;; ' 3#<

 )/3 2!

! -& ##3 ! 1+*
2   $.3454!

, ).

!> ./7

?7=

!> # ?7=