When offences were committed in the course of one transaction, there will no misjoinder of charges?

Mr. Nuruddin Ahmed referred one more feature of the case and faintly argued that there was a misjoinder of charges since same persons who were not present at the time of the first incident, had been conjointly tried with the appellants. Those who were tried along with the appellants have been acquitted and there has been no prejudice so far as the appellants are concerned. Secondly it cannot be said that there were two isolated incidents. The incident with regard to Girdhar was an off-shoot of the incident with regard to Shyamdutt and being a consequence of the latter incident in which some of the accused were common, it could be legitimately held that the offences had been committed in the course of one transaction. Hence the trial was not vitiated.

Supreme Court of India

Jai Narain Mishra And Ors. vs State Of Bihar on 3 November, 1971

Equivalent citations: AIR 1972 SC 1764, 1973 (0) BLJR 241, 1972 CriLJ 469, (1971) 3 SCC 762, 1972 (4) UJ 183 SC

Bench: A Ray, D Palekar

Print Page

Landmark judgment of Supreme court on principle of joinder of charges

Having regard to the facts and the circumstances of this case, we are of opinion that the present case falls under section 235. It provides that if in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. The prosecution story as disclosed in the evidence clearly shows that the offence of extortion committed on the 14th September was one of a series of acts connected with the offence of murder and attempt to murder committed on the previous day in such a way as to form the same transaction. The prosecution case was that when the appellant accompanied by his party came, he caught hold of two persons (P.W. 5 and P.W. 9) at Rajole and proceeded to Korivi. He took them into custody without any rhyme or reason. Then outside the village seeing the deceased, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P. W. 4 he shot at them. The deceased fell down while the others ran away. He pursued them and brought two of them back to the spot where the deceased was lying but was yet alive. He shot him in the chest and killed him. Then he proceeded to the village itself where he stayed for the night. He released P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 on the intercession of certain persons but kept P. W. 5 and P. W. 9 in wrongful confinement and released them only next morning after extorting Rs. 200 from P. W. 5. These incidents related in the evidence leave no manner of doubt that from the moment the appellant started from the Police Station, he committed a series of acts involving killing, injuring people, unlawfully confining others and extorting money from one of them. We are satisfied that the series of acts attributed to the appellant constitute one transaction in which the two offences which are alleged to be distinct were committed. The case falls squarely within the purview of section 235 of the Code and we are, therefore, of opinion that such misjoinder was permitted by the exception. No question of contravention of any express provision of the Code such as section 233 arises and in the circumstances it is not necessary for us to consider how far the violation of any express provisions of the Code relating to the mode of a trial or otherwise constitutes an illegality which vitiates the trial as distinguished. from an irregularity which is curable under section 537. This conclusion in our opinion disposes of the contention about misjoinder of the charges. The fact that the offence of extortion was committed at a different place and at a different time does not any the less make the act as one committed in the course of the same transaction.

Supreme Court of India

Aftab Ahmad Khan vs The State Of Hyderabad on 6 May, 1954

Equivalent citations: 1954 AIR 436, 1955 SCR 588

Bench: Hasan, Ghulam

BENCH:
HASAN, GHULAM
MUKHERJEA, B.K.
BOSE, VIVIAN

Print Page