{"id":2001,"date":"2024-06-26T15:44:55","date_gmt":"2024-06-26T10:14:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=2001"},"modified":"2024-06-26T15:44:55","modified_gmt":"2024-06-26T10:14:55","slug":"kerala-hc-holds-that-only-court-has-the-authority-to-alter-charges-under-section-216-of-the-cr-p-c","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/kerala-hc-holds-that-only-court-has-the-authority-to-alter-charges-under-section-216-of-the-cr-p-c\/","title":{"rendered":"Kerala HC holds that only court has the authority to alter charges under section 216 of the Cr.P.C."},"content":{"rendered":"

ASWATHY K. P. @ ASWATHY<\/strong> \u00a0[REVISION PETITIONER] Vs. <\/strong>STATE OF KERALA<\/strong>\u00a0 \u00a0[RESPONDENT\/RESPONDENT]<\/h1>\n

CRL.REV.PET NO. 437 OF 2024<\/p>\n

    \n
  • BADHARUDEEN, J.<\/strong>)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Facts:<\/u><\/strong> The present Revision petition under Section 397 r\/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused in SC.No.677\/2019 on the files of Assistant Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda.<\/p>\n

    Issue:<\/u><\/strong> Whether the accused may be convicted for the additional charges?<\/p>\n

    Arguments on behalf of counsel for revision petitioner:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

    It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after framing charge under Sections 304 and 309 of IPC, trial started and PWs 1 to 5 were examined. Thereafter, relying on the evidence given by PW5, the court, acting on the application filed by the prosecution under Section 216 Cr.P.C, altered the charge. It is submitted that the prosecution has no right to seek alteration of charge though it is permissible at the volition of the court. The learned counsel placed decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Azeez & Ors<\/em><\/strong>., where this Court referred decision of the Apex Court in P.Kartikalakshmi v. Sri Ganesh & anr.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

    Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

    Repelling this contention, the learned Public Prosecutor placed another decision of this Court reported in Silvester @ Silver v. State of Kerala<\/em><\/strong> wherein also this Court considered the power under Section 216 of Cr.P.C and it was held that going by the statutory provisions and the precedents, a proceeding initiated at the instance of the Public Prosecutor or the defacto complainant for alteration of charge is not vitiated since the informant or the Public Prosecutor, by way of an application, could bring to the notice of the court the defects in the charge and court exercises its powers under Section 216 of Cr.P.C based on the material available.<\/p>\n

    Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court dismissed the present petition and held that, \u201cIn the case at hand, even though an application has been filed by the Public Prosecutor seeking alteration of the charge, in paragraph 6 of the order impugned, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, opined that there was evidence brought into that the accused put the child into the pond and caused his death. Thus the evidence of PW5 would throw light to an offence of murder separating the same from culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This is the reason why the learned Assistant Sessions Judge altered the charge by invoking the power under Section 216. If so, the challenge against the said order mainly on the ground that Public Prosecutor has no right to file an application to seek alteration of charge would not succeed. Nothing available to hold that the accused in any way prejudiced by the order impugned. In such view of the matter, the order is perfectly justified. Accordingly, this Revision Petition must fail. Hence, the impugned order doesn’t require interference. Therefore, the Revision Petition stands dismissed.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

    <\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    ASWATHY K. P. @ ASWATHY \u00a0[REVISION PETITIONER] Vs. STATE OF KERALA\u00a0 \u00a0[RESPONDENT\/RESPONDENT] CRL.REV.PET NO. 437 OF 2024 BADHARUDEEN, J.)   Facts: The present Revision petition under Section 397 r\/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused in SC.No.677\/2019 on the files of Assistant Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda. Issue: Whether the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2003,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2001","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2001","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2001"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2001\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2004,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2001\/revisions\/2004"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2003"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2001"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2001"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2001"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}