The End of 'Business as Usual': 4 Supreme Court Rulings Rewriting the Rules of Criminal Justice

 1.0 Introduction: The End of the "Routine"

For decades, a certain complacency has been a hallmark of the Indian criminal justice system. A "chalta hai" (anything goes) attitude often characterized routine procedures, from the moment of arrest to the final verdict. This approach, while familiar, frequently came at the cost of individual liberties and true accountability. However, the ground is shifting. A series of forceful Supreme Court judgments is challenging this mindset head-on, signaling a new era where procedure is not just a formality but a fundamental pillar of justice.

Print Page

Safeguarding Liberty: Landmark Supreme Court Criminal Law Judgments 2025

 

Print Page

Supreme Court: Charges Framed Cannot Be Deleted Invoking S.216 CrPC/S.239 BNSS

  We are in agreement with the view that once charges have been framed by the Trial Court in exercise of the powers Under Section 228 Code of Criminal Procedure, the Accused cannot thereafter be discharged, be it through an exercise of the powers Under Sections 227 or 216 Code of Criminal Procedure. It is reiterated that the language of Section 216 Code of Criminal Procedure provides only for the addition and alteration of charge(s) and not for the deletion or discharge of an Accused. If the Legislature had intended to empower the Trial Court with the power to delete a charge at that stage, the same would have been expressly and unambiguously stated. Therefore, at such a stage of the trial, the Accused must necessarily either be convicted or acquitted of the charges that were so framed against him. No shortcuts must be allowed. {Para 154}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1319 of 2013 and 272 of 2014

Decided On: 17.04.2025

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Raj Kumar Arora and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.

Author: J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0500/2025,2025 INSC 498.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Alteration of Charge in Criminal Trials: Navigating the Nuances of Section 216 CrPC

 In the intricate process of criminal adjudication, the framing and alteration of charges form a critical pivot on which the quest for justice often turns. Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) empowers courts with the authority to alter or add to charges before the delivery of judgment, a provision that ensures the evolving factual matrix is reflected adequately in trials. Yet, this judicial power demands a careful balance to uphold the accused's right to a fair defense while adjusting the legal framing of offences.

Understanding Alteration of Charge

Print Page

Whether the court should pass specific order for new trial/de novo trial after alteration or addition of charge?

 The matter can be viewed from another angle also. Section 216 of the Code empowers the Court to alter or add to any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced and provides that after such alteration or addition of the charge the Court is required to read and explain the same to the accused in accordance with Sub-section (2) thereof. It is further laid down under Sub-section (3) that if in the opinion of the Court the alteration or addition to a charge is not likely to prejudice the accused in his defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case the Court may in its discretion proceed with the trial immediately with the altered or added charge. Sub-section (4) provides that if the alteration or addition is such that the proceeding immediately with the trial is likely to prejudice the accused or the prosecutor the Court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary. Section 217 of the Code provides that whenever a charge is altered or added to by the Court after the commencement of the trial the prosecutor and the accused shall be allowed to recall or to summon and examine with reference to such alteration or addition any witness who has already been examined unless the Court for reasons to be recorded in writing considers that the desire to recall or re-examine such witness was only for the purposes of vexation or delay or defeating the ends of justice. Besides, it permits the prosecutor and the accused to call any further witness whom the Court may think it to be material. On a combined reading of the above two sections it is, therefore, evident that after an alteration or addition of the charge the interest of the prosecution and the accused has to be safeguarded by permitting them to further examine or cross examine the witness already examined, as the case may be, and by affording them an opportunity to call other witnesses. It is undoubtedly true that discretion has been given to the Court to direct a new trial after addition or alteration of any charge, but it does not mean that every such addition or alteration in the charge which has been read over and explained to the accused would lead to inevitable inference that the Court has directed a new trial for them. It, therefore, follows that unless the Court passes a specific order and directs a new trial it cannot be presumed that a new trial has commenced only because an alteration or addition to a charge which has been read over and explained to the accused has been made. Indeed the order dated April 30, 1987 shows that while directing the prosecution to examine the 4 witnesses afresh the 5th Court adjourned the case for further trial and did not direct fresh trial. This apart, any such direction given by the Court has to be judged on the touchstone of prejudice to the accused or the prosecution. In the instant case, as has already been noticed after the addition of charges the prosecution expressly stated that they did not want to further examine the four witnesses already examined but they were willing to produce them if the accused so wanted. The accused, however, did not avail of this opportunity in accordance with Section 217 of the Code and, therefore, it is too late in the day for them to raise a grievance on that score. We hasten to add that even if we had found that there was any irregularity in the continuation of the trial against the appellants after the additional charges were framed, we would not have been justified in setting aside the impugned judgment on that ground alone for there is not an iota of material on record wherefrom it can be said that a failure of justice has occasioned thereby. To put if differently, in our view in such a case Section 465 of the Code would have squarely applied.{Para 23}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 1992

Decided On: 21.03.1995

Ranbir Yadav  Vs.   State of Bihar

Print Page

Whether court can frame charge against discharged accused as per S 216 of CRPC?

 Under Section 216, Cr.P.C. the court may alter charge. It says:

216. Court may alter charge.

(1) Any court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.

(2) Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused.

(3) If the alteration or addition to a charge is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is not likely, in the opinion of the Court, to prejudice the accused in his defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case, the Court may, in its discretion, after such alteration or addition has been made, proceed with the trial as if the altered or added charge had been the original charge.

(4) If the alteration or addition is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is likely, in the opinion of the court, to prejudice the accused or the prosecutor as aforesaid, the Court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary.

(5) x x x x x

12. Add to any charge means the addition of a new charge. An alteration of a charge means changing or variation of an existing charge or making of a different charge. Under this section addition to and alteration of a charge or charges implies one or more existing charge or charges. When the appellants Vijya Bai and Jiya Bai were discharged of all the charges and no charge existed against them, naturally an application under Section 216, Cr.P.C. was not maintainable in their case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 452-53 of 1990

Decided On: 21.08.1990

Sohan Lal  Vs.   State of Rajasthan

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.N. Saikia and K. Ramaswamy, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0379/1990,AIR 1990 SC 2158,(1990) 4 SCC 2158

Print Page

Whether court can alter or add charges against accused when case is closed for judgment?

In Jasvinder Saini v State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) (2013) 7 SCC 256, this Court dealt with

the question whether the Trial Court was justified in adding a charge under

Section 302 of the IPC against the accused persons who were charged under

Section 304B of the IPC. Justice T S Thakur (as he then was) speaking for the

Court, held thus:

“11. A plain reading of the above would show that the

court's power to alter or add any charge is unrestrained

provided such addition and/or alteration is made before

the judgment is pronounced. Sub-sections (2) to (5) of

Section 216 deal with the procedure to be followed once the

court decides to alter or add any charge. Section 217 of the

Code deals with the recall of witnesses when the charge is

altered or added by the court after commencement of the trial.

There can, in the light of the above, be no doubt about the

competence of the court to add or alter a charge at any time

before the judgment. The circumstances in which such

addition or alteration may be made are not, however,

stipulated in Section 216. It is all the same trite that the

question of any such addition or alternation would

generally arise either because the court finds the charge

already framed to be defective for any reason or because

such addition is considered necessary after the

commencement of the trial having regard to the evidence

that may come before the court.”

(Emphasis supplied)

20 From the above line of precedents, it is clear that Section 216 provides the

court an exclusive and wide-ranging power to change or alter any charge. The

use of the words “at any time before judgment is pronounced” in Sub-Section (1)

empowers the court to exercise its powers of altering or adding charges even

after the completion of evidence, arguments and reserving of the judgment. The

alteration or addition of a charge may be done if in the opinion of the court there

was an omission in the framing of charge or if upon prima facie examination of

the material brought on record, it leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as

to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The

test to be adopted by the court while deciding upon an addition or alteration of a

charge is that the material brought on record needs to have a direct link or nexus

with the ingredients of the alleged offence. Addition of a charge merely

commences the trial for the additional charges, whereupon, based on the

evidence, it is to be determined whether the accused may be convicted for the

additional charges. The court must exercise its powers under Section 216

judiciously and ensure that no prejudice is caused to the accused and that he is

allowed to have a fair trial. The only constraint on the court’s power is the

prejudice likely to be caused to the accused by the addition or alteration of

charges. Sub-Section (4) accordingly prescribes the approach to be adopted by

the courts where prejudice may be caused.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. 1934 of 2019

Dr Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs  The State of Andhra Pradesh 

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

Dated:January 21, 2020.

Print Page

Whether victim can file application for alteration of charge U/S 216 of CRPC?

It is significant to mention that the aforesaid decision has been relied on by the petitioner but it is evident from paragraph 6 of the judgment that section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an enabling provision for the Court to exercise its power under certain contingencies which comes to its notice or brought to its notice. In the case in hand, the error or omission in framing the charge was brought to the notice of the trial court by the defacto complainant and accordingly the charge was altered upon perusal of the material which was overlooked. 

 By virtue of Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Court is vested with the power to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. In view of the specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure under section 216 the bar under section 362 Cr.P.C. is not applicable in the case of alteration of charge by the Court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

C.R.R. 2533 of 2018

Decided On: 12.06.2019

 Satrajit Roy Vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Asha Arora, J.

Print Page

Whether court can alter charge if no evidence is adduced?

After so stating, the Court opined that there was no

material on which the trial court could have amended the

charge under Section 227 CrPC and the learned Judge

therefore had no power to direct an amendment and a

continuation of the same trial as he purported to do. The

purpose of laying stress on the said authority is that the

trial court could issue a direction for alteration of the

charge if there were materials before it in the complaint or

any evidence to justify such action. On the aforesaid

three-Judge Bench decision, it is quite vivid that if there are

allegations in the complaint petition or for that matter in

FIR or accompanying material, the court can alter the

charge. In Thakur Shah v. King Emperor (supra), what

the Court has held is that alteration or addition of a charge

must be for an offence made out by the evidence recorded

during the course of trial before the court. It does not

necessarily mean that the alteration can be done only in a case where evidence is adduced.

16. From the aforesaid, it is graphic that the court can

change or alter the charge if there is defect or something is

left out. The test is, it must be founded on the material

available on record. It can be on the basis of the complaint

or the FIR or accompanying documents or the material

brought on record during the course of trial. It can also be

done at any time before pronouncement of judgment. It is

not necessary to advert to each and every circumstance.

Suffice it to say, if the court has not framed a charge

despite the material on record, it has the jurisdiction to add

a charge. Similarly, it has the authority to alter the charge.

The principle that has to be kept in mind is that the charge

so framed by the Magistrate is in accord with the materials

produced before him or if subsequent evidence comes on

record. It is not to be understood that unless evidence has

been let in, charges already framed cannot be altered, for

that is not the purport of Section 216 CrPC.

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.131 of 2016

Anant Prakash Sinha @ Anant Sinha V State of Haryana & Anr. 

Dated:March, 4, 2016

Citation:2016 ALL SCR(CRI)577

Dipak Misra, J.

Print Page