Meaning, Form and Content of Charge under BNSS | Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

The criminal proceedings when in their pre-trial stage entail the framing of charges. This step is taken by the court once it determines that there are sufficient prima facie grounds to believe that the accused may have committed the alleged offence.

This step is crucial as it also depicts that the court is now moving towards the trial stage. The court formally communicates to the accused the specific criminal offences for which they will be tried. It is crucial to understand that the concept of “charges” and their framing per se, is the most crucial step in a criminal trial. This is so because this step determines what path shall be taken by the case at hand. The conclusion that might follow in the trial depends entirely on how the charges are framed.

Any error in this, if goes unidentified, can either lead to injustice on the part of the accused as he might be punished for an offence that he did not commit, or else it might be unjustified for the victim as the actual offence won’t be accounted for at the first place. The courts are thus expected to be very cautious when dealing with the concept of “charges”.

Framing of Charge

A charge in criminal law is a formal accusation made against a person, specifying the offence they are alleged to have committed. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile CrPC, 1973) deals with the concept of charge under criminal trials. Chapter XVIII of the BNSS deals with “Charge”. This chapter is further divided into two parts: Part A: Form of Charges, Part B: Joinder of Charges.

Section 234 specifically deals with the contents of the charge.

According to Section 237, the words used in describing an offence in a charge shall be interpreted in the sense assigned to them by the specific law under which the offence is punishable.

Now that we have understood what “Charge” means, and the usage of words and their decoding, let us understand the effect of errors if any caused while the framing of charges is being done. 

It is imperative to understand that Section 238 of the BNSS implies that no errors made in the framing of charges are relevant unless they play the role of misleading the accused and that they ultimately lead to failure of justice. This means, that if there is any error or omission about mentioning the offence, or any other details relating to it, the same shall not be taken into consideration in any steps of the trial. Having said that, the court does hold the ultimate power to alter charges in cases where it deems fit.

This alteration includes both additions as well as removal from the charge before any judgment is pronounced by the court. Section 239 of the BNSS provides for this. The altered charge is read out to the accused and if required, the proceedings are started afresh. Witnesses in such cases can also be recalled by the court as per Section 240.

Content of Charge

To ascertain what is the nature of the crime committed by an individual and to initiate an appropriate case for criminal prosecution, Charge plays a crucial role as it has to be very specific and based on proper facts/circumstances.

Since the Charge has to be drawn in specific legal language, thereby establishing a clear and precise background concerning the accusation, Section 234 of the BNSS specifically prescribes the contents of the Charge, which includes the following contents:

• In terms of Section 234(1) of the BNSS, every charge should necessarily state the offence for which any individual is being made the accused for commission. This provides a clear understanding of the nature of the crime being committed.
• Further, in case the statute prescribes any specific name to the offence which has been committed, such specific name shall be used in terms of Section 234(2) of the BNSS. Furthermore, in cases wherein there is no specific name prescribed under the law to the offence, the definition of such an offence must be included within the charge in terms of Section 234(3) of the BNSS, to provide the accused, sufficient opportunity to ascertain the offence for which he has been made accused.
• Any formation of charge should necessarily include the laws and sections relying upon which the offences are being assumed to be committed in terms of Section 234(4) of the BNSS.
• The framing of a charge implies that all legal conditions necessary to constitute the offence charged have been duly met in the given case.
• Section 234(6) of the BNSS prescribes that the charge must be written in the language of the court. This not only enhances ease of reference but also ensures uniformity in the judicial process.
• If the individual against whom the charges are being framed, has been previously convicted of any offence, such previous conviction may have an impact on the punishment if the Court deems fit. In such cases, the charge must include the details of previous conviction such as facts, date, place of offence etc. If the charge doesn’t include the details of such a previous conviction, the same may be added by the Court while the sentence is passed. [Section 234 (7)]

Judgments Related to Charge

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, while dealing with cases relating to the formation of charge, have touched upon different aspects of the same as under:

1. The Hon’ble Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy (2004), held that while the charge is being framed against an individual, the evidence cannot be meticulously considered at that stage, and the same may be framed in there is sufficient materials to establish the commission of offence, which is irrespective of the fact that whether the case is based on circumstantial evidence or based on direct evidence.
2. In the case of Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal (2000), the Hon’ble Court held that if the trial court decides to frame a charge there is no legal requirement that he should pass an order specifying the reasons as to why he opts to do so.
3. In the case of Motilal Songara v. Prem Prakash (2013), where the accused suppressed the fact of framing charges before the Revisional Court against an order of a Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence and thereupon prayed for discharge it was held that the High Court was not justified in discharging the accused as the accused tried to gain an advantage by suppression of fact

Conclusion

The court has the inherent duty to inform the accused of all the offences that he is accused of and shall be tried for. The charges made against him must therefore be conveyed to him before the trial is commenced. Charge must also therefore be clear, equivocal and easily understandable. It must be made sure that courts remain very cautious while framing the said charges to refrain from practising any prejudice against the rights of the accused. If the same happens, then it will defeat the fundamental principles of natural justice upon which the Sanhita is entirely based.

References

[1] State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522

[2] Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 1 SCC 722

[3] Motilal Songara v. Prem Prakash, AIR 2013 SC 2078

[4] D. Vijay Goutam, Charge and Discharge Framing of Charges, Available Here

[5] Muneeb Rashid Malik, Decoding Charge, Available Here

[6] The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023