Framing Of Charge Under Crpc
Framing of Charge under CrPC (Detailed Explanation with 5+ Case Laws)
Framing of charge is a crucial stage in a criminal trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). It ensures that the accused is made aware of the exact accusation against them so they can prepare their defense properly.
⚖️ I. Meaning of Framing of Charge
The “charge” is the precise and specific allegation against the accused.
Framing of charge is a formal statement of the offense that the court believes the accused must answer.
It ensures fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
📜 II. Relevant Sections of CrPC
| Section | Content |
|---|---|
| Section 211-224 | General provisions relating to charge |
| Section 228 | Framing of charge in Sessions Cases |
| Section 240 | Framing of charge in Warrant Cases by Magistrates |
| Section 246 | Framing of charge in Warrant Cases instituted otherwise than on police report |
✅ III. When is Charge Framed?
In Sessions cases (Section 228): After hearing the prosecution and the accused and considering the record, if the judge believes there is sufficient ground to presume that the accused has committed an offense triable by the court, charge is framed.
In Magistrate cases (Section 240): Same principle—if there is prima facie evidence, charge is framed.
🔍 IV. Standard: "Presumption" Not Proof
The court is not required to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt at this stage. The court just needs to see if there’s a prima facie case.
This has been clarified in many case laws.
🧑⚖️ V. Important Case Laws Explained
1. Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4
Key Principles:
This is the leading case on framing of charge.
The Supreme Court held that the judge must evaluate the material to see if there's a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offense.
The judge is not to conduct a mini-trial or weigh evidence as in a final judgment.
Observations:
The court laid down four key principles, including:
Whether materials afford reasonable ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offense.
Whether the evidence is wholly untrustworthy.
Impact:
This judgment is often cited to show that prima facie suspicion is enough for framing of charge.
2. State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39
Key Points:
The court held that at the stage of framing charges, the truth, veracity, and effect of the evidence are not to be meticulously judged.
Only a strong suspicion is enough to frame the charge.
Quote from Judgment:
“If the evidence gives rise to a strong suspicion of the accused having committed the offense, then it is sufficient for framing a charge.”
Impact:
It clarified that elaborate scrutiny of evidence is not needed at this stage.
3. Sajjan Kumar v. CBI (2010) 9 SCC 368
Facts:
Related to 1984 anti-Sikh riots; appeal against framing of charges under Sections 302, 153A IPC etc.
Held:
The court reiterated that at the stage of charge, the court is not supposed to weigh evidence.
The standard is only whether a prima facie case is made out.
Quote:
“At the stage of framing of charge, probative value of materials on record cannot be gone into.”
Impact:
Widely cited for distinguishing between prima facie case vs conclusive evidence.
4. Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 2 SCC 135
Facts:
Accused of murder, but the defense claimed absence of sufficient material for framing of charge.
Held:
The court held that if the material does not disclose any grave suspicion, the accused should not be charged.
Reiterated that the court should not act mechanically in framing charge.
Impact:
Emphasized judicial discretion and reasoned decision at the time of framing charge.
5. State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Suresh Rajan (2014) 11 SCC 709
Facts:
Related to disproportionate assets case involving a political figure.
Held:
The Supreme Court clarified that at the stage of framing charge, material collected by the investigating agency should not be discarded even if the defense appears plausible.
Impact:
Reinforced that defense evidence is irrelevant at this stage unless it demolishes the prosecution case completely on the face of it.
6. Asim Shariff v. National Investigation Agency (2019) 7 SCC 148
Facts:
Case under UAPA. Accused challenged the framing of charges.
Held:
The court held that a deeper probe into evidence was not required; only a prima facie inference was necessary.
Even under special laws like UAPA, the same principle for framing charge applies.
Impact:
Important for showing that the principle of prima facie evidence applies even under stringent laws.
📌 VI. Key Takeaways
| Point | Explanation |
|---|---|
| No Mini-Trial | Court is not to evaluate evidence in detail at this stage |
| Prima Facie Case | A strong suspicion is sufficient, not conclusive proof |
| Defense Not Relevant | Defense material usually not considered at charge stage |
| Judicial Mind | Court must apply its mind and not act mechanically |
| Discharge vs Charge | If no sufficient ground, court should discharge the accused |
📚 VII. Conclusion
Framing of charge under CrPC is a filtering process to ensure that only those cases which have some substance proceed to trial. The threshold is low but not non-existent—there must be some credible material. Courts must walk a fine line between protecting the rights of the accused and ensuring that justice is not derailed prematurely.
RELATED Blog
0 comments