Absence of Accused while Framing the Charges

Another important aspect is the absence of the accused while framing the charges. The parameters of the legal framework are kept in mind as the accused is not present when the charges are framed against him. The golden triangle of the Indian Constitution, Articles 14, 19, and 21 ensures the right to equality before the law, the right to personal liberty, and the fundamental right to life which encourages a fair trial of the accused person—the principles of natural justice are the right to be heard and a fair opportunity.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is of the view that the burden of proving the ingredients of the charges framed always lies upon the prosecution and never shifts to the accused to disprove them. In this way, the accused gets a fair chance to give a satisfactory explanation. The Court focuses on whether the case put up by the prosecution is groundless. Therefore, the absence of an accused during the framing of charges does not deprive him of a fair trial.

Judicial Discretion in Framing Charges

Judicial discretion is yet another aspect of framing charges. The magistrates and Sessions Judges have the authority to frame charges against the accused. The charges are framed after thoroughly assessing the evidence presented. They also hold the power to alter or modify the charges as deemed fit according to the available evidence. Minor irregularities do not invalidate the trial of the accused and are no grounds to vitiate the trial process until it is contrary to a fair and free trial and fails to deliver justice.

“At the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to finding out if there is a ground for ‘presuming’ that the accused had committed the offence. At this stage, the Court is not required to appreciate the evidence on record or to find out whether the accused will be convicted based on the evidence recorded.” – Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) \, it was held that “at the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to finding out if there is a ground for “presuming” that the accused had committed the offence. It is observed and held that at that stage, the High Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, take at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. It is further observed and held that at this stage the High Court is not required to appreciate the evidence on record and consider the allegations on merits and to find out on the basis of the evidence recorded the accused charge-sheeted or against whom the charge is framed is likely to be convicted or not.”

Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 states the procedure when an accused is produced or brought before the Magistrate. Section 274 of the BNSS 2023, which is the corresponding section of the above-mentioned section, also empowers the magistrate to discharge an accused in the summons case. This proviso was not given in the CrPC, 1973.

While framing the charges, it is ensured that all the charges are framed based on substantial evidence as circumstantial evidence is not a very effective way to charge an accused unless the prosecution is able to show a complete chain of circumstances. Charges should not be arbitrary and should align with the evidence available on record.

“At this stage, we do not deem it necessary to delve into the discussion of whether there is sufficient evidence to fulfil the requirements of particular sections of Penal Code, 1860 charged against the Respondents. The trial court shall decide whether charges are proved or not in due course.” – Ranjeet Mittal v. State of Madhya Pradesh The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that “at this stage, we do not deem it necessary to delve into the discussion of whether there is sufficient evidence to fulfil the requirements of particular sections of Penal Code, 1860 charged against the Respondents. The trial court shall decide whether charges are proved or not in due course. Given the statements of witnesses, suspicious circumstances around the death of the deceased and the gravity of the offence, we are of the opinion that the trial needs to be conducted to reach the truth. (Para 21)”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court also opines that the courts have extensive authority to alter and rectify the charges. The only thing to be considered while altering the charges is to ensure that the alterations made do not cause prejudice to the accused and do not affect his defence strategy. Thus, a balance should be created between delivering justice and giving an opportunity to the accused to defend himself.

After the charges are made clear to the accused, he can contest them and challenge the charges framed. The accused has the right to file a revision petition in the High Court. This process ensures a fair, just, and transparent criminal justice mechanism that is governed by the Constitutional principles, Procedural Laws, and Judicial Interpretation.

The framing of charges is a pivotal step in the criminal justice process, marking a point where the case has undergone judicial scrutiny. At this stage, the judge carefully assesses the accusations and determines if there is enough evidence to proceed, confirming that the charges hold prima facie legitimacy. Importantly, the accused is not without safeguards during this process. They have the right to challenge the charges through mechanisms like filing a quashing petition or a discharge application. These options provide an additional layer of judicial review, helping to address concerns about the potential for false allegations.