S. 218 CrPC | Unless There Occasioned Failure Of Justice, An Irregularity On Account Of Misjoinder Of Charges Doesn’t Invalidate A Conviction: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court observed that as per Section 218 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), unless there occasioned failure of justice, an irregularity on account of misjoinder of charges does not invalidate a conviction.
The Court observed thus in an appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the CrPC by a man who was convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 354, and 448 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A Single Bench of Justice P.G. Ajithkumar held, “The offences charged against the appellant in this case were not so connected together as to form the same transaction. Therefore, there is misjoinder of charges. The question is whether on account of misjoinder of charges the conviction is vitiated. … On a reading of sub-section (1) of Section 464 it is explicit that misjoinder of charges is an irregularity. It is explained that unless there occasioned failure of justice, an irregularity on account of misjoinder of charges does not invalidate a conviction.”
Amicus Curiae Rebin Vincent Gralan represented the appellant while Public Prosecutor Sheeba Thomas represented the respondent.
Facts of the Case -
A final report was filed by the Sub Inspector of Police alleging offences punishable under Section 308, 354 and 448 of IPC. The allegations were that in 2005, the appellant/accused tried to outrage the modesty of the victim by trespassing into her house. Further, he stabbed another person with a knife with the knowledge that his intended act would have caused the death. Upon framing a charge and denying the same by the accused, the prosecution examined witnesses and during examination under Section 313(1)(b) of the CrPC, the accused denied incriminating circumstances.
He further stated that the case was foisted by the relatives of the victim knowing her relationship with the accused. No defence evidence was let in. The trial court, after considering the evidence found that on the said night of the incident, the accused trespassed into the house of the victim and outraged her modesty by catching her hold of. It was also found that he stabbed the other person causing an injury to his left hand. The trial court took the view that the attack by the accused on the person did not amount to an offence punishable under Section 308 of the IPC, but, that act amounted to an offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC.
The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides noted, “This Court in Krishnan Kutty v. State of Kerala [2023 SCC OnLine Ker.4233] held that assuming that there was a legal impediment in clubbing of charges, in the light of the provision contained in Section 464, the trial cannot be vitiated on account of the same, provided, no failure of justice has occasioned on account of the same.”
The Court added that it is quite clear that separate evidence was brought in concerning each head of the charges and that no occasion resulting in miscarriage of justice or prejudice to the appellant is pointed out by the Amicus Curiae.
“On an anxious consideration of the evidence on record, I am convinced that there occurred no failure of justice on account of such a misjoinder of charge. The appellant obtained enough opportunity to challenge the evidence of each witness and there was no overlapping or mixing up of facts. In the circumstances, the conviction of the appellant is quite legal; in spite of such a misjoinder of charges. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal to the extent of modifications in the sentence and ordered the Trial Court to run the sentence under Section 324 of IPC after the sentence for the other offences.
Cause Title- Santhosh @ Chandu v. State (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:18097)
