The bench comprising of Justice Dr. Dhanajaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hrishikesh Roy passed judgment in the case titled, Dr Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
The Case Background:
A charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and his parents for offences under Section 498A of the IPC along with Sections 3 (Penalty for giving or taking dowry) and 4 (Penalty for demanding dowry) of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. The Trial Court framed charges against the appellant only for offences mentioned in the original charge-sheet under Section 498A of the IPC along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Public Prosecutor, under Section 216 of CrPC, asking for alteration of charge filed application in the Trial Court even though an additional charge-sheet had been filed implicating the appellant for crimes under Sections 406 and 420, charges were not framed by the trial judge under those provisions.
It was only when an application under Section 216 of CrPC was filed by the public prosecutor that it was brought to the notice of the Trial Judge that charges under Sections 406 and 420 were not framed.
Section 216 of CrPC reads as follows:
“216. Court may alter charge. —
(1) Any court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. (2) Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused. (3) If the alteration or addition to a charge is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is not likely, in the opinion of the court, to prejudice the accused in his defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case, the court may, in its discretion, after such alteration or addition has been made, proceed with the trial as if the altered or added charge had been the original charge. (4) If the alteration or addition is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is likely, in the opinion of the court, to prejudice the accused or the prosecutor as aforesaid, the court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary. (5) If the offence stated in the altered or added charge is one for the prosecution of which previous sanction is necessary, the case shall not be proceeded with until such sanction is obtained, unless sanction has been already obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as those on which the altered or added charge is founded.”
The Supreme Court expounded, “the test to be adopted by the court while deciding upon an addition or alteration of a charge is that the material brought on record needs to have a direct link or nexus with the ingredients of the alleged offence.”
The Supreme Court stated that, “The veracity of the depositions made by the witnesses is a question of trial and need not be determined at the time of framing of charge. Appreciation of evidence on merit is to be done by the court only after the charges have been framed and the trial has commenced. However, for the purpose of framing of charge the court needs to prima facie determine that there exists sufficient material for the commencement of trial.”
The Supreme Court is in appreciation of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh where it has relied upon the materials on record and concluded that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC are attracted. The High Court had spelt out the 15 reasons that have necessitated the addition of the charge and hence, the impugned order does not warrant any interference.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and granted the pending trial proceedings to continue.
Read the Judgment:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
