Legal Provisions of Section 215 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), India.
Effect of errors:
This section and Section 464 deal with the cases where a charge is framed but there are errors, omissions or irregularities in the charge. But such error or omission or irregularity in statement of the offence will not be material at any stage unless the accused has been misled thereby and, in fact, occasioned a failure of justice. In other words, where the accused is not misled, the defect in the charge will not be material to set aside the conviction of the accused.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The Privy Council in Babulal v. King Emperor, held that the irregularity of charging together different offences instead of charging them separately was curable under this section and Section 464 (Section 537 of the old Code) if the accused was not prejudiced thereby.
The Supreme Court in Rawalpenta Venkalu v. State of Hyderabad, observed that omission to mention Section 34, IPC in the charge had only an academic significance and had not in any way misled the accused and on the basis of evidence in the case the charge of murder had been brought home against both the accused persons.
Image Source : luna.edu
Where the prosecution makes out a case different from that stated in the charge, it clearly causes prejudice to the accused and therefore it is an illegality which warrants setting aside the conviction of the accused.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In William Stanley v State of M.P. the Supreme Court ruled that a mere defect in the charge or non-framing of charge does not vitiate the trial unless prejudice is caused thereby to the accused, which has to be determined in each particular case.
Some cases in which no prejudice was caused to the accused:
An error as to the exact place at which a part of the offence was stated to have been committed was held to be a mere irregularity on a misunderstanding of the facts which would not vitiate the trial.
Again, where the manner in which the offence of criminal breach of trust was committed was not specified as required by Section 218 it was held to be a defect which was not material to upset the trial.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
So also, the details of the charge of cheating though not stated in the charge, were in fact on the record before the charges were framed and the accused could not have been misled thereby and no grievance was made by him or his counsel on that score before the trial Court. Therefore, the irregularity complained of cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the accused and hence it did not vitiate the trial.
The Supreme Court in State (N.C.T. Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, has observed that charges are often framed by way of abundant caution but even then assuming that some inapplicable provision has been mentioned in the charge-sheet, it is no ground for setting aside the charge and invalidate the trial.