CHANDRA PRATAP SINGHversusSTATE OF M.P

                  [2023] 13 S.C.R. 761 : 2023 INSC 887



                             CASE DETAILS

                      CHANDRA PRATAP SINGH
                                      v.
                              STATE OF M.P.
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 1209 of 2011)
                            OCTOBER 09, 2023
          [ABHAY S. OKA AND PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.]
                              HEADNOTES
      Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justified in
altering the charge u/s. 302 read with ss. 148 and/or 149 to a charge u/s.
302/34 IPC, and convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence
punishable u/s 302/34 and u/s. 201 IPC.
     Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 rw s. 34, 201 – Murder – Common
intention – Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false
information to screen offender – Conviction of accused persons for the
offence punishable u/s. 302 rw ss. 148 and 149 and s. 201 and sentenced
accordingly, for committing triple murder – High Court acquitted three
of them and as regards remaining substituted their conviction with s.
302/34, while maintaining conviction u/s. 201 – Correctness:
      Held: Grave prejudice caused to the appellant by altering the charge u/s.
302 read with ss. 148 and/or 149 to a charge u/s. 302/34 without giving any
notice to the appellant or his advocate about the charge – No reason recorded
in the impugned judgment to show that s.34 was applicable – No finding
recorded that there was sufficient evidence to prove that the four accused
who were ultimately convicted had done the criminal act in furtherance of
a common intention – On perusal of the evidence of prosecution witness,
there was no evidence of the presence of common intention which is the
necessary ingredient of s. 34 – Only the act of stopping the deceased
would not, by itself, bring the case within the purview of s.34 – No overt
act attributed to the appellant by any prosecution witness in the assault on
the deceased – It is difficult to infer a prior meeting of minds – There is no
overlap between common object and common intention – However, the
                                      761
762          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 13 S.C.R.


evidence of eyewitnesses very consistent on the role played by the appellant
in dragging the dead body of the deceased and throwing the same into a
well – Thus, there is every justification for convicting the appellant for the
offence punishable u/s. 201 of causing the disappearance of the evidence
of the crime – Appellant’s conviction u/s. 302/ 34 set aside, however, the
conviction for the offence punishable u/s. 201 is confirmed – Appellant
having already undergone the sentence, the bail bonds are cancelled. [Para
13-16, 18-20]
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 386 rw s. 216 – Appeal
against conviction – Power of court to alter or add the charge – Notice of
the charge proposed to be altered or added to the accused – Necessity of:
       Held: In view of the wide powers conferred by s. 386 Cr.PC, an
Appellate Court can exercise the power u/s. 216 of altering or adding the
charge – Principles of natural justice require the appellate court to put the
accused to the notice of the charge proposed to be altered or added when
prejudice is likely to be caused to the accused by alteration or addition of
charges – Unless the accused is put to notice that the appellate court intends
to alter or add a charge in a particular manner, his advocate cannot effectively
argue the case – Court can give the notice of the proposed alteration or
addition of the charge even by orally informing the accused or his advocate
when the appeal is being heard – Court can grant a short time to the advocates
for both sides to prepare themselves for addressing the Court on the altered
or added charge. [Para 12]

       LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

      Mala Singh v. State of Haryana (2019) 5 SCC 127 : [2019] 3 SCR
932; Chittarmal v. State of Rajasthan (2003) 2 SCC 266 : [2003] 1 SCR
49 – referred to.
       OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
              ORDER AND APPEARANCES

     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
1209 of 2011.
    From the Judgment and Order dated 01.12.2004 of the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in CRLA No. 992 of 1992.
           CHANDRA PRATAP SINGH v. STATE OF M.P.                        763


     Appearances:
     D. S. Naidu, Sr. Adv., Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Ms. Komal Mundhra,
Ananvay Anand Vardhan, Ms. Divya Narayan, Saurabh Agrawal, Advs. for
the Appellant.
     Sunny Choudhary, Abhimanyu Singh, Karan Bishnoi, Prithvi Raj
Singh, Advs. for the Respondent.

       JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT

                              JUDGMENT
     ABHAY S. OKA, J.
     FACTUAL ASPECTS
      1. This is an appeal by accused no. 2 who has been convicted by the
High Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). The appellant was also
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC. For the first
offence, he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. For the second
offence under Section 201 of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for five years.
     2. There were 17 accused prosecuted for the offence of triple murder.
Out of 17 accused, the Trial Court acquitted accused nos. 3 to 8, 10, 13, 15
and 17. The Trial Court convicted accused nos. 2, 9, 11, 12, and 16 for the
offence punishable under Section 302, read with sections 148 and 149 and
Section 201 of IPC. Accused nos.1 and 14 were convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 148 of IPC. The Trial
Court did not frame a charge against any accused for the offence punishable
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. The High Court acquitted
accused nos. 9, 11 and 12.
      3. The allegation was of the triple murder of Uma Prasad, Vinod
Kumar and Munau @ Anant Kishore Khare. According to the prosecution
case, on 2nd June 1987, Vinod Kumar had taken his brother Munau to village
Naugaon by scooter for medical treatment. As they did not return till 5 pm,
Uma Prasad Khare (deceased), who was the father of Vinod Kumar Khare
and Munau, deputed Naval Kishore (PW-1) and Manua Chammer (PW-2)
764          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 13 S.C.R.


to search his sons. PW-1 Naval Kishore was the nephew of Uma Prasad.
Even Uma Prasad proceeded to search Vinod Kumar and Munau Khare.
When they reached Hanuman temple, they saw the accused gathered near
the temple with firearms and other arms like farsa, axe and ballam. The
appellant – accused no.2 and accused no.16 were armed with a spear. The
role ascribed to accused nos.2 and 16 is that they stopped Uma Prasad. As
a result, he fell off his bicycle. According to the prosecution case, accused
nos. 3, 5 and 7 (acquitted) exhorted the other accused to chop Uma Prasad
into pieces. Accused nos. 7, 9 and 11 (acquitted) pointed their guns at
PW-1 Naval Kishore and PW-2 Manua and told them not to interfere. The
act of assaulting and killing Uma Prasad was allegedly done by accused
no.1 and accused no.14.
     4. Another allegation against the appellant is that as per suggestion
of acquitted accused no.6, he, along with accused no.1, dragged the body
of deceased Uma Prasad and threw the same into a well.
      5. Further allegation of the prosecution is that after committing the
murder of Uma Prasad, all the accused went towards the bus stand with the
intention of killing Vinod Kumar Khare and Munau Khare. It is alleged
that after about 15 minutes, the sound of two gun fires was heard, and it
is alleged that Vinod Kumar Khare and Munau Khare were killed. As
far as the allegation of killing these two persons is concerned, the Trial
Court acquitted all the accused, and that part of the judgment of the Trial
Court has become final.
     6. A joint appeal was preferred by accused no.1, the present appellant-
accused no.2 and accused no.16. Separate appeals were preferred by
the other accused. While partly allowing the appeals, by the impugned
Judgment, the High Court acquitted accused nos. 9,11 and 12. The High
Court partly allowed the appeal of the present appellant and accused nos.
1,14 and 16 by substituting their conviction under Section 302 read with
Sections 148 and/or 149 of IPC with Section 302 read with Section 34 of
IPC. The appellant’s conviction for the offence punishable under Section
201 of IPC was maintained.
     7. We may note here that Special Leave Petition (criminal) no. 876
of 2012 filed by accused no.1 was dismissed as the said accused did not
file proof of surrender. The application for restoration of the Special
           CHANDRA PRATAP SINGH v. STATE OF M.P.                       765
                    [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

Leave Petition was also dismissed. It appears that accused nos.14 and
16 did not prefer any appeal to this Court. They may have undergone the
entire sentence.
     SUBMISSIONS
     8. The first submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for
the appellant is that the appellant was not represented by his advocate
when the appeal was called out for hearing before the High Court. In
the cause title of the impugned judgment, the absence of the appellant’s
advocate has been mentioned. Moreover, the judgment does not refer
to any submission made on behalf of any accused. He would, therefore,
submit that the High Court has committed a gross illegality by proceeding
with the hearing of the appeal in the absence of his advocate.
     9. He submitted that in view of the decision of this Court in the case
of Mala Singh v. State of Haryana1, the appellant could not have been
convicted with the aid of Section 34 of IPC as there was no evidence
of common intention, which was necessary for attracting Section 34 of
IPC. Moreover, the appellant and other accused ought to have been put
to notice by the High Court that it intended to modify the charge for
invoking Section 34. He submitted that prejudice has been caused to the
appellant by alteration of the charge apart from the fact that ingredients
of Section 34 of IPC were not proved. Hence, the appellant is entitled
to acquittal.
      10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent urged that
from the impugned judgment, it appears that the High Court has carefully
perused the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He submitted that in
an appeal against conviction, under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.PC’) read with Section 216 of Cr.PC,
the Appellate Court, has the power to alter or add the charge when no
prejudice is shown to the accused. He submitted that there was enough
evidence on record to prove the ingredients of Section 34 of IPC. He
invited our attention to the gravity of the offence and submitted that no
interference is called for.


1   (2019) 5 SCC 127
766           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 13 S.C.R.


      CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
       11. The first issue is whether any prejudice was caused to the appellant,
as his appeal was heard in the absence of his advocate. The cause title of
the judgment clearly mentions that the advocate representing the appellant
was absent. The order sheet of the appeal preferred by the appellant and two
others (Annexure P-3) records that on 26th October 2004, when the appeal
preferred by the appellant and two others was called out, the appellant’s
advocate was present. The appeal was heard on 23rd November 2004. The
order sheet of that date records that the advocate for the appellant was absent.
It also notes that the arguments were heard, and judgment was reserved. The
impugned judgment does not refer to any submission canvassed on behalf
of the appellant. The High Court has, thus, committed illegality by deciding
the appeal against the conviction preferred by the appellant without hearing
the appellant or his advocate. After finding that the advocate appointed by
the appellant was absent, the High Court ought to have appointed a lawyer
to espouse his cause.
      12. In view of the wide powers conferred by Section 386 of Cr.PC,
even an Appellate Court can exercise the power under Section 216 of
altering or adding the charge. However, if the Appellate Court intends to
do so, elementary principles of natural justice require the Appellate Court
to put the accused to the notice of the charge proposed to be altered or
added when prejudice is likely to be caused to the accused by alteration or
addition of charges. Unless the accused was put to notice that the Appellate
Court intends to alter or add a charge in a particular manner, his advocate
cannot effectively argue the case. Only if the accused is put to notice by
the Appellate Court that the charge is intended to be altered in a particular
manner, his advocate can effectively argue that even the altered charge was
also not proved. For example, in the present case, it was necessary for the
Appellate Court to put the appellant to notice that it intended to convict him
with the aid of Section 34 of IPC, for which a charge was not framed. We
may add here that the Court can give the notice of the proposed alteration or
addition of the charge even by orally informing the accused or his advocate
when the appeal is being heard. In a given case, the Court can grant a short
time to the advocates for both sides to prepare themselves for addressing
the Court on the altered or added charge.
           CHANDRA PRATAP SINGH v. STATE OF M.P.                          767
                    [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

      13. In the facts of the case, the appellant’s advocate was absent on the
date of the hearing. Therefore, there was no occasion for the High Court to
put the advocate for the appellant to the notice that the charge under Section
302 read with Sections 148 and/or 149 of IPC was proposed to be altered to
a charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Therefore, grave
prejudice has been caused to the appellant by altering the charge without
giving any notice to the appellant or his advocate about the charge. The
reason is that there was no opportunity available to the accused to argue
that there was no evidence on record to prove the existence of common
intention, which is the necessary ingredient of Section 34 of IPC. There is
one more crucial aspect of the case. A perusal of the impugned judgment
shows that the High Court has extensively referred to the evidence of PW-1
Nand Kishore and PW-2 Manua. However, the entire judgment does not
mention that the Court was altering the charge for the reasons recorded.
No finding is recorded in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 216 of Cr.PC
that the proposed alteration of the charge will not prejudice the accused in
his defence.
      14. There is no reason recorded in the impugned judgment to show that
Section 34 of IPC was applicable. There is no discussion on this aspect in
the judgment. Only in the operative part (paragraph 15), without assigning
any reasons, the High Court held that the appellant was liable to be convicted
for the offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 of IPC.
As stated earlier, there is a complete absence of any reason for concluding
that Section 34 of IPC was attracted. The High Court has not recorded a
finding that there was sufficient evidence to prove that the four accused
who were ultimately convicted had done the criminal act in furtherance of
a common intention.
     15. Obviously, the Trial Court’s conviction of the appellant under
Section 302 with the aid of Section 149 of IPC could not be sustained. As
per Section 141 of IPC, unlawful assembly must be of five or more persons.
As the High Court confirmed the conviction of only four and acquitted all
others, the offence of unlawful assembly was not made out, and therefore,
the offences under Sections 148 and 149 were not made out.
     16. In the ordinary course, we would have remanded the appeal to
the High Court for a fresh hearing on the ground that the appellant was
not heard before confirming conviction on a modified charge. However,
768           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 13 S.C.R.


we cannot ignore that the incident is of 1987, and the present appeal is of
2011. Therefore, it will be unjust to pass an order of remand. Hence, we
have examined the evidence on record.
      17. In the case of Chittarmal v. State of Rajasthan2, this Court dealt
with the conversion of charge from Section 302 read with Section 149 of
IPC, to Section 302, read with Section 34 of IPC. Paragraph 14 of the said
decision reads thus:
      “14. It is well settled by a catena of decisions that Section 34 as well
      as Section 149 deal with liability for constructive criminality i.e.
      vicarious liability of a person for acts of others. Both the sections deal
      with combinations of persons who become punishable as sharers in
      an offence. Thus they have a certain resemblance and may to some
      extent overlap. But a clear distinction is made out between common
      intention and common object in that common intention denotes
      action in concert and necessarily postulates the existence of a
      prearranged plan implying a prior meeting of the minds, while
      common object does not necessarily require proof of prior meeting
      of minds or preconcert. Though there is a substantial difference
      between the two sections, they also to some extent overlap and it
      is a question to be determined on the facts of each case whether
      the charge under Section 149 overlaps the ground covered by
      Section 34. Thus, if several persons numbering five or more, do
      an act and intend to do it, both Section 34 and Section 149 may
      apply. If the common object does not necessarily involve a common
      intention, then the substitution of Section 34 for Section 149
      might result in prejudice to the accused and ought not, therefore,
      to be permitted. But if it does involve a common intention then
      the substitution of Section 34 for Section 149 must be held to be a
      formal matter. Whether such recourse can be had or not must depend
      on the facts of each case. The non-applicability of Section 149 is,
      therefore, no bar in convicting the appellants under Section 302
      read with Section 34 IPC, if the evidence discloses commission of
      an offence in furtherance of the common intention of them all.


2     (2003) 2 SCC 266
           CHANDRA PRATAP SINGH v. STATE OF M.P.                       769
                    [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

     (See Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor [AIR 1925 PC 1 : 26
     Cri LJ 431], Mannam Venkatadari v. State of A.P. [(1971) 3 SCC 254:
     1971 SCC (Cri) 479 : AIR 1971 SC 1467], Nethala Pothuraju v. State
     of A.P. [(1992) 1 SCC 49: 1992 SCC (Cri) 20: AIR 1991 SC 2214]
     and Ram Tahal v. State of U.P. [(1972) 1 SCC 136: 1972 SCC (Cri)
     80: AIR 1972 SC 254])”
                                                        (Emphasis added)
      18. We have carefully perused the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2.
There is no evidence of the presence of common intention. Only the act
of stopping the deceased Uma Prasad will not, by itself, bring the case
within the purview of Section 34 of IPC. There is no overt act attributed
to the appellant by any prosecution witness in the assault on deceased
Uma Prasad. It is difficult to infer a prior meeting of minds in this case.
There is no material to prove the existence of common intention which
is the necessary ingredient of Section 34 of IPC. In this case, there is no
overlap between a common object and a common intention. Therefore,
the conviction of the appellant under Section 302, read with Section 34
will have to be set aside.
      19. However, the evidence of two eyewitnesses (PW-1 and PW-2)
is very consistent on the role played by the appellant in dragging the
dead body of the deceased and throwing the same into a well. There is
hardly any cross-examination on this aspect of both PW-1 and PW-2.
Therefore, there is every justification for convicting the appellant for the
offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC of causing the disappearance
of the evidence of the crime. Hence, the conviction and sentence of
the appellant for the offence under Section 201 of IPC will have to be
maintained. The order dated 20th April 2012 passed in this appeal records
that the appellant was enlarged on bail as he remained incarcerated for
about nine years. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 201 of IPC,
which he has already undergone.
     20. Hence, the appeal partly succeeds. We set aside the appellant’s
conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302, read with
Section 34 of IPC. However, the appellant’s conviction for the offence
punishable under Section 201 of IPC is confirmed. The appellant has
770            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2023] 13 S.C.R.


already undergone the sentence for the said offence. Therefore, the bail
bonds of the appellant stand cancelled.
      21. The appeal is allowed on the above terms.



Headnotes prepared by:                                Appeal partly allowed.
Nidhi Jain