The Concept of joinder of charges (section 218-224)
Author : Aparna Singh
The charge is defined in Section 2(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Means that “charge implies the head of the charge when there is more than one charge”.
Essential Procedure with respect to charge and its trial
The code looks to make sure about this necessity, first, by setting down in Sections 211 to 214 of CrPC concerning what a charge ought to contain; next, specifying in Section 218 of CrPC that for each unmistakable offense there ought to be a different charge; and in conclusion, by setting down in a similar section that each charge ought to be attempted independently.
Joinder of Charges (Section 218-222)
Under the criminal law, section 218 to 222 talk about the provisions identified with joinder of charges in a single trial against a similar blamed. The main special cases perceived are contained in Sections 219,220,221 and 223 of CrPC.1
In Chunnoo vs State, AIR 1954 All 795 same was held,2 in section 223 joint trial against at least two charged people are managed. Section 218 provisions with the essential principle which says that for each unmistakable offense there must be a different charge and a different trial for each such charge.
On the basis of K. Satwant Singh v. Province of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 266,3 that the areas of joinder of charges are not convincing in nature. They just license the joint trial of charges in specific situations, and the courts may think about the equivalent in light of a legitimate concern for the organization of justice after completely considering the facts and circumstances of each case.
Encircling of Charges
The overall standard seeing charges as indicated by Section 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is that each offense of which a specific has been denounced will go under a different charge and each such charge will be attempted independently and particularly. This implies every offense must be treated as a different element and ought to be attempted particularly. In any case, Section 218(2) cuts out special cases to Section 218(1). This implies Section 219-223 discussions about the Joinder of Charges.
The exception to Section 218
Exception 1
Three offenses which are of a similar kind, submitted inside a year might be charged together: This part has been given to different variety of the procedures when the offenses are
- K. Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 266
- Chunnoo vs State, AIR 1954 All 795
of a similar kind. It contains two circumstances:
As per Section 219(1), if an individual has been blamed for three offenses of a similar kind then the individual can be gone after for all the offenses together in the event that they have been submitted inside a range of a year from the first to the last offense.
Section 219(2) discusses the offenses which are of a similar kind, likewise culpable with a similar quantum of discipline.
Exception 2
Offenses which are submitted throughout a similar exchange and attempted together. It comprises of the accompanying:
In the event that an individual has submitted a progression of acts, which are so inherently associated together that they structure a solitary exchange, such arrangement of offenses will be charged and attempted together. The word ‘exchange’ has not been characterized under the Code.
If there should be an occurrence of offenses of Criminal penetrate of trust or unscrupulous misappropriation of property and their partner offenses of distortion of records. Numerous a periods, the offenses of criminal break of trust or untrustworthy misappropriation of property are perpetrated alongside the offense, for example, adulteration of records and so on. The last offense carried out so as to satisfy the target of the previous offense. In such cases, Section 220(2) empowers the Courts to attempt such offenses together.
On the off chance that a solitary demonstration falls under inside various and separate meanings of offenses, such various offenses will be attempted together as referenced under Section 220(3). For e.g. If an individual X, unjustly hits an individual Y with a stick, at that point X can either be accused of and attempted independently of offenses under Sections 352 and Sections 323 of the Indian Penal Code or might be attempted and sentenced together.
In the event that the demonstrations which structure an offense likewise comprise various offenses when independently taken and attempted or taken in gatherings, such offenses will be attempted to be one out of a solitary trial. For e.g.: If A submits the offense of burglary on B, and keeping in mind that doing so he deliberately makes hurt B, at that point A might be independently accused of, and indicted for the offenses referenced under Sections 323, 392 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code.
Exception 3
Section 221 accommodates the cases wherein there is some uncertainty identified with the circumstances and occurrences which occurred during the commission of the offense. As per this section, if the blamed has submitted an arrangement for acts which lead to disarray with respect to the facts ought to be demonstrated, the denounced may be accused of any or all of such offenses or charged for elective offenses. In such cases, the denounced is charged for one offense and during the phase of proof, on the off chance that it is demonstrated that he has submitted an alternate offense; he might be indicted for the equivalent despite the fact that he was not accused of the equivalent.
Exception 4
Section 223 discussions about the class of people who can be attempted mutually. The different classes will not be treated as totally unrelated and could be joined together if fundamental. As per this section, the accompanying classes of people might be attempted and charged together:
- The blamed people who have submitted a similar offense over the span of a similar exchange.
- The people who have submitted a specific offense and the individuals who have abetted the commission.
- The people who are secured under the ambit of Section 219.
- The people who in a similar course of the exchange have submitted various offenses.
The people who have carried out offenses, for example, robbery, coercion, cheating, or criminal misappropriation of the property alongside the people who have gotten, held, aided the removal or camouflage of property, ownership of which is illicit and has been asserted to be unlawful.
The people who have been blamed for any offense under Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code identified with the fake coins. The blamed people, whose cases have not been secured under any of the classes of Section 223, can’t himself guarantee a joint trial.
The standards contained from Section 218 to Section 223 have been made to support the charged. It isn’t needed to treat the different classes of areas as totally unrelated. The Courts have been given the position to join the provisions of multiple statements. The joint trial of a few people incompletely by applying one provision and by halfway applying another proviso has likewise been approved.
The overall principle in the event of charges is that there will be a different charge for each particular offense, which will be attempted independently. Yet, Sections 219, 220, 221 and Section 223 cut out the special cases to this fundamental guideline. In easier words, a different trial is a standard while a joint trial is its special case.
On account of Ranchhod Lal v. Territory of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1248,4 it was held that it is at the caution of the court whether to apply Section 219, Section 220 and section 223 Criminal Procedure, 1973 or resort to Section 218. The denounced has not been given this option to fall back on joinder of charges.
The inquiry with respect to the mis-joinder of charges and joint trial for unmistakable offenses was replied by the Supreme Court on account of Union Of India v. Ajeet Singh (2013) 4 SCC 186.5 It was held by the court that the standards fundamental the provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 just go about as a core value.
Conviction of an offense not charged when such offense is remembered for the offense charged
As indicated by Section 222, if the blamed is accused of an offense comprising of a few
4. Ranchhod Lal v. Territory of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1248
5. Union Of India v. Ajeet Singh (2013) 4 SCC 186
specifics, some of which whenever consolidated and demonstrated to frame a minor offense, at that point he might be sentenced for such minor offense. In spite of the fact that the importance of the term ‘minor offense’ isn’t characterized under the code, it implies an offense which has lesser discipline than the other offense of which the denounced has been charged.
It isn’t essential in the request cases to outline a proper charge. Simple expressing to the blamed the specifics for the offenses which he has been accused of would do the trick. In such cases, the inquiry identified with the immaterialness of provisions of joinder of charges emerges.
In any case, it has been set up by means of various points of reference like on account of Upendra Nath Biswas v. Ruler ILR (1913) 41 CaL 6946 and Indramani v. Chanda Bewa 1956 Cri LJ 12187 that the provisions of joinder of cases are similarly relevant to the request case too.8
Section 224 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 discussions about the withdrawal of outstanding charges.9 It is appropriate just in situations where the blamed has been sentenced for one for a few unmistakable charges before different charges have been attempted.10
6. Upendra Nath Biswas v. Ruler ILR (1913) 41CaL694
7. Indramani v. Chanda Bewa 1956 Cri LJ 1218
8. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Universal Lexis Nexis.
9.Kelkar’s V.K., Lectures on Criminal Procedure Code(K.N. Chandrasekharan Pillai, 6th , 2017
10. I Pleaders, https;//blog.pleaders.in/joinder-charges, (Last visited on 20 September, 2020)
Conclusion
The framing of charge is the most essential advance of the cycle of inception of a trial in a criminal continuing. Most extreme consideration must be taken while the charges are being encircled as off-base framing may prompt forswearing of justice. Accordingly, one should avoid wrongful framing and joinder of charges as such a failure would vitiate the essential pith of a reasonable trial.
While framing the charges, the appointed authority needs to deal with the way that there is a presence of a case by all appearances and should give his explanations behind releasing the case recorded as a hard copy.
The sections which manage various sorts of trials just notice that solitary the obligation of framing of charges has been vested upon the courts. The court may modify/add to any charge whenever before the judgment is articulated. Besides, the provisions managing the joinder of charges are not carefully pertinent to the judges. There is a presence of carefulness upon the appointed authorities to either join the charges or attempt each charge independently relying on the facts and circumstances of each case.
