Case Title: Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey
The Public Prosecutor has a duty to offer the Court a fair sense of the prosecution's case before a Trial Court moves forward with framing the accusation against the accused, the Supreme Court noted in the present case. The court made this observation in a decision allowing an appeal against the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, which had upheld a Trial Court order where the accused of the murder was charged on the grounds that the deceased's cause of death, according to the post-mortem report, was cardiorespiratory failure.
The court cited Sections 226-228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to assess whether the order clearing the accused of murder charges was appropriate.
On the other hand, it was noted that Section 226 CrPC corresponds to sub section (1) of the old Section 286 with verbal changes owing to the abolition of the jury. When the jury has been selected or, in any other circumstance, when the judge is prepared to hear the case, the old Section 286 stated that the prosecutor shall open his case by reading from the Indian Penal Code or other applicable law the description of the offense charged and briefly stating by what evidence he expects to prove the guilt of the accused.
The Court also relied upon its earlier judgement in VC Shukla v. State through CBI and highlighted the purpose behind framing a charge which is to intimate to the accused the clear, unambiguous and precise nature of accusation that the accused is called upon to meet in the course of a trial.
The current Section 226 deals with presenting the prosecution's case to the court: When the accused appears or is brought before the court as a result of a commitment of the case under Section 209, the prosecutor shall present his or her case by laying out the allegations against the defendant and outlining the evidence he or she intends to use to establish the defendant's guilt. Hence the court observed that, "Section 226 of the CrPC permits the prosecution to make the first impression regards a case, one which might be difficult to dispel. In not insisting upon its right under Section 226 of the CrPC, the prosecution would be doing itself a disfavour. If the accused is to contend that the case against him has not been explained owing to the non compliance with Section 226 of the CrPC, the answer would be that the Section 173(2) of the CrPC report in the case would give a fair idea thereof, and that the stage of framing of charges under Section 228 of the CrPC is reached after crossing the stage of Section 227 of the CrPC, which affords both the prosecution and accused a fair opportunity to put forward their rival contentions. Our understanding of the provision of Section 226 of the CrPC is that before the Court proceeds to frame the charge against the accused, the Public Prosecutor owes a duty to give a fair idea to the Court as regards the case of the prosecution."