Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

Allahabad High Court Upholds Addition of Section 376 I.P.C. Charge in Immoral Traffic Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Justice Dinesh Pathak, dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the addition of a charge under Section 376 I.P.C. against the applicant, Om Prakash @ Jani, in a case related to the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.

The case, originally filed under various sections of the I.P.C. and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, took a pivotal turn when the prosecution moved to add a charge of rape under Section 376 I.P.C. against the applicant. This move was contested by the defense, citing procedural irregularities and lack of material evidence.

Justice Pathak, in his detailed judgment, stated, "The right of an accused to have a fair trial... cannot be seen in isolation and same would be considered in conjunction with the provisions as enunciated under Section 216 Cr.P.C." This observation underscores the court's commitment to ensuring a fair and comprehensive legal process.

The court delved into the nuances of Section 216 of the Cr.P.C., which empowers a court to alter or add charges at any stage of the trial. Emphasizing the role of the prosecution and the court in framing correct charges, Justice Pathak noted, "The Public Prosecutor has a duty to be vigilant and apprise the court qua correct facts of the case... for substraction or addition of charges under the provisions of law."

The applicant's claims about the inadmissibility of the victim's statement and other procedural lapses were carefully examined. The court found these submissions to be unfounded, reaffirming the trial court's decision to frame the additional charge.

This ruling sets a precedent in how courts handle the addition of charges in ongoing cases, especially in sensitive matters involving the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The decision highlights the judiciary's role in balancing the rights of the accused with the imperatives of justice and due process.

The case has been referred back to the trial court for further proceedings, ensuring that all necessary legal protocols are meticulously followed.

The legal fraternity views this judgment as a reaffirmation of the court's authority and responsibility in ensuring justice is served, in accordance with the law, without prejudice to any party involved.

Date on 22 December, 2023

Om Prakash @ Jani vs State Of U.P

 

 

Latest Legal News