Question: A is charged with murdering Haider Baksh on 20th January 1997 and Khuda Baksh on 21st January 1997. When charged for the murder of Haider Baksh he was tried for the murder of Khuda Baksh. The witnesses present in his defence were the witnesses in the case of Haider Baksh. A is convicted by a court. A… Read More »

Question: A is charged with murdering Haider Baksh on 20th January 1997 and Khuda Baksh on 21st January 1997. When charged for the murder of Haider Baksh he was tried for the murder of Khuda Baksh. The witnesses present in his defence were the witnesses in the case of Haider Baksh. A is convicted by a court. A challenges the said conviction on the ground of error in the charge. Decide. [U.P.C.J. 1997] Find the answer only on Legal Bites. [A is charged with murdering Haider Baksh on 20th...

Question: A is charged with murdering Haider Baksh on 20th January 1997 and Khuda Baksh on 21st January 1997. When charged for the murder of Haider Baksh he was tried for the murder of Khuda Baksh. The witnesses present in his defence were the witnesses in the case of Haider Baksh. A is convicted by a court. A challenges the said conviction on the ground of error in the charge. Decide. [U.P.C.J. 1997]

Find the answer only on Legal Bites. [A is charged with murdering Haider Baksh on 20th January 1997 and Khuda Baksh on 21st January 1997. When charged for the murder of Haider Baksh he was tried for the murder… A is convicted by a court. A challenges the said conviction on the ground of error in the charge. Decide.]

Answer

Effects of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in charge are certain matters which have been provided in Sections 215 and 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The object of these sections is to prevent failure of justice where there has been only a technical breach of rules not going to the root of the case as such. The two sections read together to lay down that whatever the irregularity in the framing of a charge; it is not fatal unless there is prejudice caused to the accused.

Section 215 reads as follows:

“No error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be Effect of errors stated in the charge and no omission to state the offence or those particulars.”

The present facts of the case are borrowed from illustration (d) appended to Section 215 in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

As per the case, A is charged with the murder of Khoda Baksh on the 21st of January 1882. In fact, the murdered person’s name was Haidar Baksh and the date of the murder was the 20th of January 1882. A was never charged with any murder but one and had heard the inquiry before the Magistrate, which referred exclusively to the case of Haidar Baksh: The Court may infer from these facts that A was not misled and that the error in the charge was immaterial. Unless it appears that A was in fact misled by this omission, the error shall not be regarded as material.


Important Mains/Long Questions for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

  1. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part I: Important Questions
  2. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part II: Important Questions
  3. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part III: Important Questions
  4. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part IV: Important Questions
  5. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part V: Important Questions
  6. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part VI: Important Questions
  7. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part VII: Important Questions
  8. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part VIII: Important Questions
  9. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part IX: Important Questions
  10. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part X: Important Questions
  11. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part XI: Important Questions
Updated On 2022-05-30T06:16:48+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story