In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court emphasized the requirement to re-examine witnesses if charges are amended during an ongoing trial. The judgment came in the case Deepak Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh (CRA No. 392 of 2021), where the appellant, Deepak Verma, challenged his conviction under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The case revolves around allegations of aggravated penetrative sexual assault against a seven-year-old girl in Raipur on June 25, 2018.
Legal Issues and Arguments
The appellant, represented by Advocate Mr. Sudhir Bajpai, argued that the trial court amended the charges mid-trial without granting the defense an opportunity to re-examine the key witnesses, violating Section 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Initially, Verma was charged under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, but the charges were later amended to Section 376AB of the IPC following legal revisions. The defense contended that the failure to recall witnesses after altering charges resulted in prejudice against the accused, as the amended sections prescribed higher penalties, making re-examination crucial.
The respondent, represented by Panel Lawyer Mr. Sakib Ahmed, maintained that the evidence presented during the trial was sufficient to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and argued that re-examination of witnesses was unnecessary in this context.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru. The court acknowledged that altering charges before the final judgment is permissible under the law but stressed the mandatory requirement of recalling witnesses for re-examination under Section 217 of the CrPC to ensure a fair trial. The bench noted:
“When charges are altered, opportunity must be given under Section 217 of the CrPC, both to the prosecution and the defense, to recall or re-examine the witnesses in reference to such altered charges.”
The court found that, in this case, four key witnesses were examined before the amended charges were framed. However, these witnesses were neither recalled nor re-examined, which the court deemed a procedural lapse impacting the appellant’s right to a fair trial.
Outcome of the Case
After reviewing the evidence and considering the procedural flaws, the High Court partially allowed the appeal. The court set aside the conviction under Section 376AB of the IPC, instead convicting the appellant under the earlier charge of Section 6 of the POCSO Act. As per the court’s revised ruling, Deepak Verma was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹50,000, with a default sentence of one additional year of imprisonment if the fine is not paid.
The court reiterated that adherence to Section 217 CrPC is essential in trials involving altered charges, as it protects the rights of both the prosecution and the defense to present their cases fully and fairly.
