KALICHARAN & ORS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

KALICHARAN & ORS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

The convictions of accused nos.1,2 and 4 were set aside because the trial court framed misleading charges alleging death by bullet injuries (contrary to the evidence and post-mortem showing death due to sharp-edged weapon injuries) and failed to put the material circumstances arising from the prosecution evidence to...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Kalicharan; Appellant: Yaad Prakash; Appellant: Diwan Singh; Appellant: Shakuntala Devi; Accused: Bangali; Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal by the Supreme Court Allowing the Appeal in Part (decided December 14, 2022)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; convictions of accused nos.1 (Kalicharan), 2 (Yaad Prakash) and 4 (Shakuntala Devi) set aside; accused no.3 (Diwan Singh) earlier held to be juvenile and acquitted; accused to be set at liberty unless detained for other offences.
Legal Topics
Framing of Charge Under Section 213 Cr PC, Examination of Accused Under Section 313 Cr PC, Omission/error in Charge and Failure of Justice, Unlawful Assembly and Section 149 IPC, Post Mortem Evidence, Juvenile in Conflict With Law
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Evidence Framing of Charge Under Section 213 Cr PC Examination of Accused Under Section 313 Cr PC Omission/error in Charge and Failure of Justice Unlawful Assembly and Section 149 IPC Post Mortem Evidence +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kalicharan

Appellant

Yaad Prakash

Appellant

Diwan Singh

Appellant

Shakuntala Devi

Appellant

Bangali

Accused

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal by the Supreme Court Allowing the Appeal in Part (decided December 14, 2022)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a proper charge was framed in terms of Section 213 CrPC
  2. 2 Whether material circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC
  3. 3 Whether omission to frame proper charge and failure to put material circumstances caused prejudice and a failure of justice

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions of accused nos.1,2 and 4 were set aside because the trial court framed misleading charges alleging death by bullet injuries (contrary to the evidence and post-mortem showing death due to sharp-edged weapon injuries) and failed to put the material circumstances arising from the prosecution evidence to the accused under Section 313 CrPC; these omissions caused serious prejudice and occasioned a failure of justice. Consequently, the convictions as to those accused could not be sustained and were quashed (accused no.3 had earlier been held to be a juvenile and acquitted).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; convictions of accused nos.1 (Kalicharan), 2 (Yaad Prakash) and 4 (Shakuntala Devi) set aside; accused no.3 (Diwan Singh) earlier held to be juvenile and acquitted; accused to be set at liberty unless detained for other offences.

Orders

  • Impugned judgments of the Sessions Court and High Court are set aside to the extent they convicted accused nos.1,2 and 4.
  • Accused nos.1,2 and 4 shall be forthwith set at liberty unless required to be detained in connection with any other offence.