KALICHARAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mainly two issues arise in this appeal. The first issue is regarding the omission to frame a proper charge in accordance with Sec. 213 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'CrPC'). The second issue is of the consequence of the failure of the learned Trial Judge to put material circumstances brought on record in the prosecution evidence to the accused in their statements under Sec. 313 of CrPC. In short, this Court will have to examine whether there is a failure to comply with the requirements of Ss. 213 and 313 of CrPC. If the answer to the said question is in the affirmative, the next question will be whether prejudice has been caused to the accused due to failure to comply with the aforesaid provisions and whether it has caused a failure of justice.

(2.) The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order of the Fast Track Sessions Court at Bulandshahr. The Fast Track Court convicted the accused Bangali who is not before this Court for the offences punishable under Sec. 148 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'), Sec. 302 of IPC as well as Sec. 307 read with Sec. 149 of IPC. The Fast Track Court convicted Kalicharan (accused no.1), Yaad Prakash (accused no.2), Diwan Singh (accused no.3), and Smt. Shakuntala Devi (accused no.4) for the offences punishable under Sec. 148 of IPC, Sec. 302 read with Sec. 149 of IPC and Sec. 307 read with Sec. 149 of IPC. Yaad Prakash (accused no.2) was also convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Two separate appeals were preferred before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. One appeal was preferred by the accused Bangali and the other one was preferred by accused nos.1 to 4. By the impugned judgment, the appeals were dismissed.

(3.) Accused Bangali did not challenge the impugned Judgment. Accused nos.1 to 4 have preferred this appeal. We must note here that appellant no.3 Diwan Singh (accused no.3) raised a plea in the present appeal that on the date of the commission of the alleged offence, he was a juvenile in conflict with law. Accordingly, by the order dtd. 8/2/2021, this Court directed the learned District and Sessions Judge to hold an inquiry into the said plea. A finding was rendered by the learned District and Sessions Judge holding that on the date of commission of the offence, appellant no.3 Diwan Singh (accused no.3) was a juvenile in conflict with law. Therefore, by the order dtd. 1/7/2021, the conviction of appellant no.3 was set aside and the present appeal to that extent was allowed.