Irregularity in framing the charge does not vitiate the trial unless prejudice is demonstrated - Supreme Court

                                                                    

 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the Criminal Appeal of the Appellant, son of a deceased father who died at the hands of the accused/respondent due to the ensued dispute by holding the order of the High Court as unsustainable. The High Court had passed an order to start the trial from the beginning due to procedural irregularity.

          In consequence, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court, restoring order of the trial. The Court directed the trial Court to proceed with the matter from the stage at which it stood prior to the passing of the impugned order and conclude the proceeding expeditiously in accordance with law.

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

           A dispute had arisen between the complainant party and one Narendra Sharma (accused no.9 in trial case) relating to the sale of land. It  was alleged that the accused persons, sharing common intention arrived armed with illegal firearms, opened fire upon the informant and his brothers resulting in serious injury. One of the injured later succumbed to his injuries who is father of appellant.

          An FIR was registered on the complaint by the informant for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 against respondent, Satish and eight others.

          After completing investigation , chargesheet was filed against accused persons. The trial then committed to Court of Session.

          In 2009, the trial proceeded to frame charges. However framing charges remained unsigned due to absence of the accused no. 3, Bijendra Singh. Thereafter on the next date, all the accused person were present before the Court, charges were framed and next date was fixed for recording of evidence. The eventually matter was reached in the stage for recording of statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC.

          The presiding officer decided to frame fresh charge to cure the defect, due to unsigned formal charge. The presiding officer decided to continue from the stage for recording of statements of the accused under Section 313.

          Aggrieved, by the fact, that the presiding officer continued from the stage of recording of statement inspite of framing of fresh charge against the accused persons approached High Court for invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC. The High Court allowed the application by impugned order and directed that the trial be conducted afresh.

          Therefore, the appellant preferred appeal before the Supreme Court of India to challenge the said impugned order of the High Court.

 

SUBMISSIONS

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that all the accused persons were fully aware of the charges framed against them and had actively participated in the trial for more than fourteen years. They effectively cross examined the prosecution witness at length.

          It was also contended, the respondent attempting to seek de novo trial is an attempt to exploit a technical procedural irregularity inspite of knowing that two crucial witness have expired.

          It was also contended that it not matter of absence of charge. On the contrary accused were fully aware of the nature of accusations and the evidence led against them.

                   The Learned Counsel laid emphasis on the legal fact that legal requirement is not obtaining of signatures of the accused on the formal charge, but ensuring that they are made aware of the accusation against them. The fact that presiding officer duly recorded the presence of all accused except Bijendra Singh, does not presume that charges were not read over or explained to them merely due to unsigned formal document by accused.

Accused, Bijendra Singh was duly put to notice of the charge and he did not raise objection on any date at any stage, clearly indicates that the accused had full knowledge of the charges and he suffered no prejudice – Counsel reiterated.

It was submitted by him that, omission to prepare or sing a fresh typed charge constitute procedural irregularity and such lapse cannot be elevated to a fatal  defect so as to vitiate the entire trial. The entire charge framed was identical to those set of chargesheet supplied to the accused and no new and altered charge been introduced so as to prejudice their defence.

It was submitted that accused previously filed an application under section 311 Cr.PC which was intended mainly to facilitate witnesses from turning hostile and when they failed in their attempt under section 311, the accused adopted a different strategy by raising belated objection regarding the alleged defect in the framing of charge, with the ulterior motive of securing a de novo trial and thereby recalling witnesses.

          The present attempt is aimed at effacing the evidence recorded over a prolonged period of fourteen years, particularly when key witnesses have died – Learned Counsel contended.

          The Learned Counsel taking reliance from the  judgment of the Constitution Bench in case of Willie (William) Slaney vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1956) , submitted that defects or irregularities in framing of charge are curable and cannot be treated as fatal unless they occasion failure of justice. In Willie’s case it was held that even absence of a charge does not ipso facto vitiate a trial unless prejudice is shown.

          So, in the above circumstances, it was urged by the Learned Counsel that permitting fresh trial or recalling witnesses would seriously prejudice the prosecution and defeat the ends of justice and prayed for setting aside the impugned order of the High Court and permit to proceed the trial from the stage at which it presently stands.

          The respondent, State of  Uttar Pradesh supported the contention of the appellant  to say that the impugned order of the High Court suffers from severe infirmity.

It was also contended by the respondent State that conducting  de novo trial after the period of over fourteen years has the effect of discarding the entire body of evidence and  it likely to cause injustice to the appellant specially when the crucial prosecution witnesses have expired and there is likeliness that other witnesses turning hostile.

A de novo trial is warranted only where the defect has caused real and substantial prejudice to the accused – Respondent’s Counsel stated.

          Learned Counsel also took reliance from the case of Dinesh Seth vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2008) wherein it was held by Supreme Court that only such defect which affects the fundamental fairness of the trial, such as denial of a hearing or denial of an opportunity to defend, can be regarded as fatal, whereas procedural irregularities are curable in the absence of prejudice.

The criminal justice system must balance the rights of the accused with the interests of victims and society – Learned Counsel emphasised.

          Therefore on the basis of contention, the respondent’s counsel prayed for upholding of trial Court order and setting aside of impugned order of High directing de novo trial.

On the other hand the senior counsel appearing for respondent accused contended that procedure adopted by trial Court is wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principle governing criminal trials.

 

ANALYSIS AND DECISIONS

On the basis of the pleadings and submissions advanced by Learned Counsel for parties, the following issues arose for consideration:

(i)      Issue no. 1 - Whether there was substantial compliance with the requirement of framing of charges in accordance with law?

 

          According to the facts of the case the Hon’ble Supreme Court viewed there was substantial compliance with the requirement of framing of charges in accordance with law because of the reason that the accused were fully aware of the nature of the accusations and had an effective opportunity to defend themselves. There was no prejudice whatsoever had been demonstrated throughout the trial.

          The Court reiterated to the view held in the case of  Rafiq Ahmad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011)  that purpose of framing charge is to put the accused to notice regarding the offences for which he is being tried. It was further held that non-framing of a charge or defects therein would not ipso facto vitiate the trial and that the question must always be examined in the facts of each case to determine whether prejudice or failure of justice has been occasioned.

          It has also been consistently decided by Supreme Court that where the accused clearly understood the nature of the allegations and had a full opportunity to defend themselves, defects in the charge cannot be treated as fatal

 

(ii) Issue no. 2 – Whether the defect, if any, in the framing or signing of the charges constitutes an illegality vitiating the trial, or a curable irregularity within the meaning of Sections 215 and 464 Cr.P.C?

 

          At first the Apex Court drew the difference between illegality and irregularity before concluding the second issue.

          An illegality is one that strikes at the root of jurisdiction or renders the trial fundamentally unfair, whereas an irregularity is a defect in procedure which does not vitiate the proceedings unless prejudice is demonstrated.

          Given the present case, the Supreme Court was of the considered view that the defect complained, does not rise to level of jurisdictional illegality. It is merely omission of signature in the charge though a procedural lapse does not render proceedings invalid when the charge was in fact prepared, recorded, read over and acted upon by the Courts and the parties.

          The above principle has been consistently laid down in Kamalananthan and others vs State of Tamil Nadu (2005). It held, where active participation in trial and full awareness of the prosecution case was treated as decisive indicators of absence of prejudice despite defects in the charge.

          The conduct of the accused is also significant. The objection to the alleged defect was raised belatedly in the year 2024, after substantial progress of the trial and after the demise of key eyewitnesses. Such delayed challenge is a relevant circumstance indicating absence of genuine prejudice, as recognized in Willie Slaney (supra) – Court viewed.

          Acceptance of such belated challenges founded on procedural irregularities would defeat the object of criminal procedure, which is to advance the cause of justice and not to frustrate it on technical grounds – Court said.

          With regard to the record of this case, the Court held defects relating to the absence of signature on the charge does not constitute  an illegality. It is a curable procedural irregularity within the ambit of Section 215 and 464 Cr.P.C.  Accordingly the issue went in favour of the appellant by holding that the defect is curable and does not invalidate the trial.

 

(iii) Whether the High Court was justified in directing that the trial be conducted afresh, despite the fact that the trial had substantially progressed and prosecution evidence had already been recorded?

          The Supreme Court has expressed the view with regard to the third issue that direction of the High Court to conduct the trial afresh was clearly unwarranted. Directing to conduct trial afresh would irretrievably prejudice the prosecution by depriving it vital evidence and would defeat, rather than advance the cause of justice.

          An order directing a fresh trial cannot be passed in a routine or mechanical manner. It must be supported by a clear and reasoned finding that the earlier proceedings were vitiated to such an extent that continuation thereof would result in miscarriage of justice. No such finding is discernible in the impugned order. In the absence of any demonstrated prejudice, the High Court was not justified in invoking its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the entire trial and direct that it be conducted afresh – Supreme Court held.

          In conducting the present issue, Court took reliance from the case of Nasib Singh vs State of Punjab & Anr.(2021) where it was held that retrial may be directed only in exceptional case to avert miscarriage of justice, and not for mere procedural lapses or minor irregularities.

 

CONCLUSION

          Thus, the top Court disposed off the appeal with order to proceed the trial expeditiously in accordance with law by the trial Court from where it was prior to the impugned order of the High Court.

 

Case:

Sandeep yadav vs. Satish and others (Criminal Appeal NO.1617 OF 2026)

Coram: 

Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah Justice R. Mahadevan

Date of Judgement: 25 March, 2026

Click to see Judgment

You may also read:

Right to Fair Trial: Meaning, Principle and Landmark cases.