INTRODUCTION

The offence for which an accused is charged is stated in every charge under the CrPC. The
charge's goal is to notify the accused about the crime for which he is being charged. It is
critical to inform the accused of the accusations the prosecution has brought against him
straightforwardly and confidently. This is not just a legal requirement but an underlying
concept in criminal law that upholds the accused's right to know the whole substance of the
allegations levelled against him. A charge is defined as any head of a charge when the
charge has more than one head, according to section 2(b) of the CrPC. In basic terms, a
charge is an allegation. It is a formal allegation made by a magistrate or a court based on
prima facie evidence against the defendant. A criminal charge is a formal accusation by a
government official, such as a prosecutor or the police that an individual has committed a
crime. A charge is dealt with in Chapter XVII, from section 211 to section 224. The form
of charges is dealt with in Sections 211- 217. The Joinder of Charges is dealt with in
Sections 218-224 of the CrPC. When more than one accused is tried for the same crime,
the term "joinder of charges" is used.
SECTION 211 of CrPC is crucial in understanding the content of charges.
SECTION 211 of CrPC is crucial in understanding the content of charges. It specifies that
the offence with which the accused is charged must be stated in every charge brought under
this Code. This ensures that the accused is adequately informed about the allegation. If the
statute defining the offence gives it a specific name, the charge may only use that word to
characterise it. If the legislation that produces the offence does not give it a specific name,
a portion of the offence's definition must be presented to inform the accused of the
allegation against him. The charge must include the statute and part of the law that the
offence is stated to have been committed against. The mere fact that a charge has been filed
equates to a declaration that every legal condition necessary by law to create the alleged
offence has been met in this case. The charge must be worded in the Court's language. If
the accused were previously convicted of any offence, he would be subject to enhanced
punishment, or punishment of a different kind, for a subsequent offence of a similar nature.
It is, however, required to prove the previous conviction to impact the punishment which
the Court might think would work to award for the subsequent offence. The date and place
of the previous conviction should be stated in the charge in the further sentence that the
Court might pass. One of the most important aspects is that the procedure can prove the
previous conviction in section 298 of the CrPC. A previous conviction or acquittal can be
established in any inquiry, trial, or other procedure under this Code and any other way
permitted by any legislation in effect.
CASE LAW- Mohan Singh Vs. State of Bihar It was held that in the charge wherein, no
mention of section 302 of IPC was present, but it was mentioned that the accused had killed
the deceased. It would be considered that all the ingredients of the charge were present and
mentioned, and the requirement of section 211 (2) of CrPC was complied with.
SECTION 212 CrPC- Describes the Particulars Of Time, Person And Date
Section 212 illuminates the committed offence, the charge, and its details, such as the date,
time, and place. Without mentioning specific items or dates, the charge formed in this
manner will be understood to constitute a charge of one crime within the meaning of section
219. For example, in the case of murder, the date and time of the murder, as well as details
such as the name of the accused and the deceased, are illuminated.
CASE LAW- Shashidhara Kururp Vs. Union of India 1994 It was stated that no details
meant no opportunity for the accused, directly indicating the denial of Natural Justice.
SECTION 213 of CrPC- Manner of Offence
When the nature of the case is such that the particulars indicated in sections 211 and 212
do not adequately inform the accused of the allegations with which he is charged, the charge
must also include such details of the alleged offence's commission as would be provided
for that purpose.
EXAMPLE- A is accused of obstructing B, a public worker, from performing his public
duties at a specific time and location. The accusation must detail how A interfered with B's
ability to carry out his duties.
SECTION 214 CrPC –Words in Charge Taken In Sense Of Law
Under Which Offense Is Punishable, Words used to describe an offence in a charge are
presumed to have been used in the context assigned to them by the legislation under which
the crime is punished.
SECTION 215 CrPC—Effect of Errors
Neither errors nor omissions in stating the offence nor the particulars are considered
material at any stage of the case except in cases where the error or omission misled the
accused and failed justice.
EXAMPLE- On the 20th of January, 1882, A was accused of murdering Haidar Baksh and
Khoda Baksh (who attempted to arrest him for the murder on the 21st of January, 1882. A
was charged with murdering Haidar Baksh and Khoda Baksh (who attempted to arrest him
for the murder) and was tried for the murder of Khoda Baksh when he was accused of the
murder of Haidar Baksh. The witnesses who testified in his defence were those in the
Haidar Baksh case. This may lead the court to believe that A was deceived and that the error
was material.
SECTION 216 CrPC- Court May Alter the Charge
Any charge may be changed or added to by any Court before a judgment is rendered. Every
change and addition must be read and explained to the accused. If an alteration or addition
to a charge is such that proceeding of the trial immediately would not prejudice the accused
in his defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case, the Court may, in its discretion,
proceed with the trial as if the altered or added charge was the original charge after the
alteration or addition has been made. If an alteration or addition to a charge is such that
proceeding of the trial immediately would prejudice the accused in his defence or the
prosecutor in the conduct of the case, the Court may either order a new trial or delay the
trial for the time it deems required. If the offence described is the amended or additional
charge that requires prior sanction, the case would not be dealt with until the sanction is
acquired or sanction has already been obtained for a prosecution based on the identical
circumstances as those mentioned in the altered or added charge.
SECTION 217 CrPC—Recalling of Witness
When Charge Is Altered The prosecutor and the accused are allowed to recall the witness
or summon after the Court alters or adds to a charge when the trial has already begun by
recording the reasons in writing unless the Court desires to recall or re-examine the witness
for vexation, delay, or defeating the ends of justice. The Court can call any further witness
who is considered material.
SECTION 218 CrPC- Separate Charges for Distinct Offences
There should be a separate charge for each unique offence for which the individual is
accused, and each charge shall be tried separately. However, suppose the accused person
requests in writing for the trial of all the charges together, and the Magistrate believes the
accused person would not be prejudiced. In that case, the Magistrate may try all or any of
the allegations against him. As per sub-section 2 of the said Section, the abovementioned
provisions have no bearing on the operation of sections 219, 220, 221 and 223 of CrPC.
CASE LAW- Ranchhod Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1248 The court
had discretion over whether to apply Sections 219, 220, and 223 of the CrPC 1973 or resort
to Section 218.
CASE LAW—Indramani Pradhan And Ors. vs Chanda Bewa, AIR 1956 Ori 191, 1956
CriLJ 1218 In the instant case, it was stated that Section 218 (2) applies to summons cases
as well. However, embodying a charge in writing in a summons case is unnecessary.
SECTION 219 OF CrPC- 3 Offenses of the Same Kind Within A Year May Be Charged
Together.
When a person is suspected of committing more than one offence of the same during
twelve months, regardless of whether or not the crimes were committed against the same
person, he may be charged with and prosecuted for any number of them not exceeding
three. When the same amount of penalty punishes two or more offences under the same
provision of the Indian Penal Code or other unique or local legislation, they are said to be
similar. As per the said provision, an offence punishable under section 379 of the Indian
Penal Code (is deemed an offence of the same kind as an offence punishable under section
380 of IPC.
CASE LAW – Abdul Majid Vs. Emperor, (1906) ILR 33 Cal 1256 It was stated that Section
219 of CrPC applies to the case of a single accused and is not applicable where several
persons are tried jointly.
SECTION 220 OF CrPC- Trail for More Than One Offense
If the same individual commits more than one offence in a series of acts so interrelated as
to form the same transaction, he may be charged with and prosecuted for all of them
simultaneously. When a person accused of committing one or more offences of criminal
breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of property as defined in Subsection (2) of
Section 212 or Subsection (1) of Section 219 is also accused of committing one or more
offences of falsification of accounts to facilitate or conceal the commission of that offence
or those offences, he may be charged with and tried for, all of them at the same time.
Suppose the claimed activities come under two or more independent definitions of any
legislation at the time that defines or punishes crimes. In that case, the accused may be
charged with and prosecuted for each offence in a single trial. If several acts, each of which
would constitute an offence if done alone or separately, when combined constitute a
different offence, the person accused of them may be charged with and tried for the offence
constituted by such acts when combined, as well as any other offence constituted by any
one, or more, or such acts. The said provisions have no bearing on section 71 of the Indian
Penal. CASE LAW- Babula Shailendra Nath Vs. The King Emperor, 1938 It was held that
the Privy Council has held that the identity of time is not an essential element in determining
whether certain events form the same transaction within the meaning of section 220 of
CrPC.
SECTION 221 CrPC- Where It Is Doubtful, What Offense Has Been Made
If a single act or series of acts is of such a nature that it is unclear which of several offences
the facts that can be proven will constitute, the accused may be charged with all or any of
the offences, and any number of such charges may be tried at the same time; or, in the
alternative, he may be charged with having committed someone of the said offences. If the
accused is charged with one crime and it is proven in evidence that he committed another
crime for which he might have been prosecuted under Sub-Section (1), he may be found
guilty of the crime he is proven to have committed.
CASE LAW- Shamnsaheb M.Multtani v. State of Karnataka (AIR 2001 SC 921) It was
stated that when an accused was charged with one offence and acquitted of the charge, he
cannot be convicted under alternative charges when no notice was given to the accused
calling upon him to enter his defence for the alternative change.
SECTION 222 CrPC- When Offense Proved Included
In Offense Charged When a person is charged with an offence including many particulars,
a combination of which constitutes an entire minor offence, and such combination is
proven. Still, the other particulars are not; he may be convicted of the minor offence, even
if he was not charged. When circumstances are proven to reduce an offence to a minor
offence, a person might be convicted of the lesser offence even if he was not charged. When
a person is charged with a crime, he may also be convicted of attempting to commit that
crime, even though the attempt is not prosecuted separately. Nothing in this section shall
be construed to allow a minor offender to be convicted if the circumstances for the start of
proceedings about that minor offence have not been met.
EXAMPLE—A is charged with criminal breach of trust concerning goods entrusted to him
as a carrier under section 407 of the Indian Penal Code. He appears to have committed a
criminal breach of trust about the property under section 406 of that Code, although it was
not entrusted to him as a carrier. He may be convicted of criminal breach of trust under
section 406.
SECTION 223 OF CrPC-What Person May Be Charged Jointly
The following individuals may be charged and tried as a group: - Persons accused of the
same offence committed in the same transaction; Persons accused of an offence and persons
accused of abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence; Persons accused of more than
one offence of the same kind, within the meaning of section 219, committed by them jointly
within the period of twelve months; Persons accused of different offences committed in the
same transaction; Persons accused of theft, extortion, cheating, or criminal
misappropriation, and of receiving or retaining, or assisting in the disposal or concealment
of property allegedly transferred by any such offence committed by the first-named
persons, or of abetment of or attempting to commit any such last-named offence; Persons
accused of offences under sections 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code Persons accused
of any offence under Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code relating to counterfeit coin, as
well as persons accused of any other offence under the said Chapter relating to the same
coin, or of abetment of or attempting to commit any such offence; and the provisions of the
former part of this Chapter shall, to the extent be applicable, apply to all such charges:
Provided, however, that where a number of people are charged with separate offences and
none of them fall into one of the categories set out in this section, the Magistrate or Court
of Sessions may, if they request it in writing, and if he is satisfied that they will not be
prejudiced and that it is expedient to do so, try all of them together.
CASE LAW—Lalu Prasad vs. State, AIR 2003 SC 3838 It was stated that the provision of
the joint trial is enabling. Therefore, the Court is not obliged to conduct the trial of these
cases jointly even if any person commits these offences and is a part of the same transaction.
It lies at the Court’s discretion.
SECTION 224 OF CrPC- Withdrawal of Remaining Charges
On Conviction On One Of Several Charges: When a charge containing more than one head
is framed against the same person and one or more of them is convicted, the complainant
or the prosecuting officer may, with the Court's consent, withdraw the remaining charge or
charges, or the Court may, on its motion, stay the investigation into, or trial of, such charge
or charges, and such withdrawal shall have the effect of an acquittal on such charge or
charges unless the convict is found guilty.
FRAMING DEFECT IN CHARGES
There is a case where the charges against the accused are inaccurate. Sections 215 and 216
of the Criminal Procedure Code must be read in conjunction with Section 464 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure.
CONCLUSION In a criminal trial, the charge is the cornerstone of the allegation, and
much care must be taken to ensure that it is appropriately stated and that evidence is only
presented about the charges. Recently, the Supreme Court emphasised that the powers
conferred by Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are discretionary and unusual
and should be used cautiously.
Trials
Q. When does the trial start in a “warrant case”?
Ans. Trial in a “warrant case” starts when the accused “pleads not guilty” to the charge
framed against him and “claims to be tried” under –

 Section 242 (1) Cr.P.C. in a “warrant case” instituted on a “Police Report” before a
Magistrate.

 Section 246 (4) Cr.P.C. in a “warrant case” instituted otherwise than on a Police
Report before a Magistrate.

 Section 230 Cr.P.C. in a “sessions trial”.

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab
AIR 2014 SC 1400 = (2014) 3 SCC 92 – 5 Judges – P. Sathasivam, Dr. B. S.
Chauhan, Ranjana P. Desai, Ranjan Gogoi, S. A. Bobde – JJ, after following nearly half a
dozen rulings including Ratilal Bhanji Mithani v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1979 SC
94 = (1979) 2 SCC 179 – 3 Judges – R. S. Sarkaria, O. Chinnappa Reddy, A. P. Sen –
JJ, concluded that “trial in a warrant case commences with the framing of
charge”. (Vide paras 35 and 43 (38 and 47 of SCC).
NOTES BY THE AUTHOR: With due respect, the Constitution Bench has not fully
assimilated the three-judge decision in Rathilal Bhanji (Supra – AIR 1979 SC 94) in
which Justice R. S. Sarkaria has beautifully observed as follows:-
“The trial in a warrant case starts with the framing of charge; before it, the proceedings are
only an inquiry. After framing the charge, if the accused pleads not guilty, the
Magistrate must proceed with the trial in the manner provided in S.254 to 258 to a
logical end.” (Vide para 28)
(Ss. 254 to 258 of the 1898 Code correspond to Sections 246 to 248 of the 1973 Code.)
Thus, the trial can only start when the accused “pleads not guilty.” If the accused
voluntarily “pleads guilty,” the Magistrate can convict him without a trial and impose an
appropriate sentence on him.
CONSEQUENCE OF THE ACCUSED “PLEADING GUILTY” AND “PLEADING
NOT GUILTY”
Q. What is the consequence of an accused “pleading guilty” and “pleading not
guilty”?
Ans. The consequence of the accused “pleading guilty” and “pleading not guilty” is
indicated by the following chart:-
PROSECUTIONEVIDENCE
Q. When is the case posted for prosecution evidence?
Ans. Ordinarily, when the accused “pleads not guilty”, the case is posted for prosecution
evidence.
Q. What is meant by “evidence”?
Ans. As per Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, the expression “evidence” means –

1. Oral evidence of witnesses

AND

2. Documentary evidence, including electronic records, produced for the inspection of

the Court.

Q. Can a criminal court rely on anything other than “oral and documentary
evidence”?
Ans. Yes. The Court can also rely on the following:-

1. Judicial confession (i.e. pleading guilty) by the accused.

2. Extra judicial confession by the accused

3. Statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. made by the accused. (These unsworn
statements are not evidence but can only constitute some links in the chain of
circumstantial evidence.)

4. Demeanour of the witnesses under examination before the Court. (Eg. 1. “witness
takes time”, 2. “witness avoids the question”, 3. “witness turns nervous”, 4. “witness
gives evasive answers,” etc., recorded by the Magistrate/ Judge in the deposition.)

5. Result of “local inspection” conducted by a Magistrate or Judge under Section 310

Cr.P.C.

6. Material objects. (MOs)

Q. If the above 6 items are not “evidence”, where can they be located under the
Evidence Act?
Ans. The above 6 items fall under the expression “matters” occurring in the definition of
the word “proved” in Section 3 of the Evidence Act.
The definition of the word “proved” reads as follows:-
“Proved” – A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the
Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man
ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it
exists.”
MOs may also fall under the expression “material thing” in the last proviso to Section 60
of the Evidence Act.
Q. In a Civil or Criminal trial, “evidence” can be given of what all matters?
Ans. Section 5 of the Evidence Act permits “evidence” to be given only of “facts in issue”
(as defined under Section 3 of the Evidence Act) and “relevant facts” (covered by Sections
6 to 55 of the Evidence Act).
Q. What are the main rules of evidence to be observed while admitting “oral
evidence” and “documentary evidence”?
Ans. Based on the burden of proof in Chapter VII of Part III of the Evidence Act, the oral
evidence of witnesses who are competent to testify under Section 118 of the Evidence Act
may be admitted by the Court, bearing in mind the rules under Chapter IV of Part II and
Chapters IX and X of Part III of the Evidence Act. Likewise, the Court can also admit
documentary evidence following the rules in Chapters V and VI of Part II of the Evidence
Act.
In the case of prosecution witnesses in cases instituted on a Police Report, the extent to
which the statements of witnesses given to a police officer during an investigation can be
used under the proviso to Section 162 (1) Cr.P.C. read with Section 145 of the Evidence
Act, should also be borne in mind.
SECTION 313 EXAMINATION
Q. What is meant by Section 313 examination?
Ans. Section 313 Cr.P.C. gives every criminal court the power to examine the accused to
enable him to personally explain any incriminating circumstance appearing in the evidence
for the prosecution. The Court can conduct this examination in two stages –

1. At any stage, the Court may, under Section 313 (1) (a) Cr.P.C., ask the accused
questions without previously warning him.

NOTES BY THE AUTHOR: This provision is seldom used by the criminal court. If
courts lavishly exercise this power, the possibility of witnesses resorting to perjury will be
minimal.

2. After the prosecution witnesses have been examined and before the accused is called
upon to enter on his defence, the Court shall examine the witnesses generally about
the incriminating circumstances in the prosecution evidence.

Q. What is the object of s. 313 examination of the accused?

Ans. This examination, which is mandatory (except in summons cases where the accused's
attendance has been dispensed with), allows the accused to explain the incriminating
evidence against him. This is a facet of the doctrine of “audi alteram partem,” meaning that
no person shall be condemned unheard.
Courts have gone so far as to hold that any conviction recorded without eliciting the
accused's explanation regarding all or any of the incriminating circumstances appearing
against him will be unsustainable. (Vide Sharad Birdhichand Sardar v. State of
Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622 = (1984) 4 SCC 116 – 3 Judges—Fazal Ali, Varadarajan,
Sabyasachi Mukharji—JJ.)
Q. While examining the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., should the Court not
administer an oath to him?
Ans. No. Administering oath to the accused is expressly barred under Section 313 (2)
Cr.P.C.
Q. Will the accused not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer any
question under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or by giving false answers to those questions?
Ans. No. There is a prohibition under Section 313 (3) Cr.P.C.
Q. Do the accused's answers in reply to the questions under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
constitute evidence?
Ans. No. The unsworn answers given by the accused cannot be treated as evidence. They
only constitute “links” in the chain of circumstantial evidence.
SPECIAL INTERMEDIATE STAGE OF “ACQUTTAL” IN A SESSIONS TRIAL
– Section 232 Cr.P.C.
Q. What is the particular intermediate stage of acquittal in a “sessions trial”?
Ans. If, after the prosecution evidence is over, the Judge considers that there is “no
evidence” to show that the accused committed the offence alleged, the Judge shall record
an order of acquittal.
Such a provision is absent in a warrant case triable by a Magistrate.
Supposing all the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution in a session
case, it may be a case of “no evidence” justifying an acquittal. The precious time of the
Sessions Judge need not be wasted by completing the provisions for trial. Hence, even
before the Court proceeds under Section 233 and the subsequent Sections of Chapter XVIII
Cr.P.C., the Sessions Judge is given the power to record an order of acquittal. Naturally,
the Judge will have to give reasons for the acquittal.

DEFENCE EVIDENCE
Q. Is the Magistrate obliged to call upon the accused to enter on his defence in any of
the trial modes?
Ans. Yes. In the trial of a “warrant case”, the Magistrate is obliged under Section 243 and
Section 247 Cr.P.C., respectively, to call upon the accused to enter on his defence.
Similarly, a Sessions Judge must also call upon the accused to enter his defence as per
Section 233 Cr.P.C.
But, there is no such obligation on the part of the Magistrate in a “summons trial”.
ARGUMENTS
Q. When is the case taken up for arguments?
Ans. As soon as the defence evidence, if any, is over.
Q. Who should commence the arguments?
Ans. Ordinarily, the Public Prosecutor commences the arguments unless there is a “reverse
burden,” as in Section 29 of the POCSO Act.
Q. When should the case be taken up for judgment?
Ans. Immediately after the arguments on both sides are finished, this is the stage of
termination of the trial.
Q. When should the Judgment be pronounced?
Ans. Both sides should be given notice immediately after the termination of the trial or on
a subsequent date. (Vide Section 353 (1) Cr.P.C.)
Q. What should be the language in which the judgment should be written?
Ans. The judgment should be written in the language of the Court. Section 272 Cr.P.C.
empowers the State Government to determine the language of all Courts other than the
High Court.
Q. What should be the contents of the Judgment?
Ans. Section 354 Cr.P.C. gives the contents of the Judgment. It reads as follows:-
“354: Language and contents of judgment - (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided
by this Code, every judgment referred to in Section 353,--
(a) shall be written in the language of the Court;
(b) shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons
for the decision;
(c) shall specify the offence (if any) of which, and the section of the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860) or other law under which, the accused is convicted and the punishment to which
he is sentenced;
(d) If it is a judgment of acquittal, it shall state the offence for which the accused is acquitted
and direct that he be set at liberty.
(2) When the conviction is under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and it is doubtful
under which of two sections, or under which of two parts of the same section, the offence
falls, the Court shall distinctly express the same and pass judgment in the alternative.
(3) When the conviction is for an offence punishable with death or, in the alternative, with
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years, the judgment shall state the
reasons for the sentence awarded, and, in the case of sentence of death, the particular
reasons for such sentence.
(4) When the conviction is for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of one
year or more, but the Court imposes a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than
three months, it shall record its reasons for awarding such sentence, unless the sentence is
one of imprisonment till the rising of the Court or unless the case was tried summarily
under the provisions of this Code.
(5) When any person is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that the neck hang him
till he is dead.
(6) Every order under Section 117 or sub-section (2) of Section 138 and every final order
made under Section 125, Section 145, or Section 147 shall contain the point or points for
determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision.”
Q. Should the accused be required to hear the judgment pronounced? What if there
are more accused than one, and one or more of them fails to attend the Court on the
date of judgment?
Ans. If the accused is in custody, he shall be brought up to hear the judgment pronounced.
(Vide Section 353 (5) Cr.P.C.) If the accused is not in custody, he shall be required by the
Court to attend to hear the judgment pronounced. But, he need not attend the Court in a
case where –
1. The personal attendance of the accused was dispensed during the trial, and the sentence
is one fine only.
2. If there is more than one accused, and one or more of them do not attend the Court on
the date of Judgment, the presiding officer may pronounce the judgment against all in order
to avoid undue delay. (Vide Section 353 (6) Cr.P.C.)