Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed. When offence proved included in offence charged? Section 221 and 222 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973

Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed and when offence proved included in offence charged are defined under Section 221 and 222 of CRPC 1973. Provisions under this section is:

 

Section 221 of CRPC "Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed"

(1) If a single act or series of acts is of such a nature that it is doubtful which of several offences the facts which can be proved will constitute, the accused may be charged with having committed all or any of such offences , and any number of such charges may be tried at once; or he may be charged in the alternative with having committed some one of the said offences.

(2) If in such a case the accused is charged with one offence, and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged under the provisions of sub-section (1), he may be convicted of the offence which he is shown to have committed, although he was not charged with it.

Illustrations

 

 

 

(a) A is accused of an act which may amount to theft, or receiving stolen property, or criminal breach of trust or cheating. He may be charged with theft, receiving stolen property, criminal breach of trust and cheating, or he may be charged with having committed theft, or receiving stolen property, or criminal breach of trust or cheating.

(b) In the case mentioned, A is only charged with theft.It appears that he committed the offence of criminal breach of trust, or that of receiving stolen goods.He may be convicted of criminal breach of trust or of receiving stolen goods (as the case may be), though he was not charged with such offence.

(c) A states on oath before the Magistrate that he saw B hit C with a club. Before the Sessions Court A states on oath that B never hit C.A may be charged in the alternative and convicted of
intentionally giving false evidence, although it cannot be proved which of these contradictory statements was false.

 

Section 222 of CRPC "When offence proved included in offence charged"
1) When a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it.

(2) When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it.

(3) When a person is charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an attempt to commit such offence although the attempt is not separately charged.

(4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a conviction of any minor offence where the conditions requisite for the initiation of proceedings in respect of that minor offence have not been satisfied.

Illustrations

(a) A is charged, under section 407 of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860) with criminal breach of trust in respect of property entrusted to him as a carrier. It appears, that he did commit criminal breach of trust under section 406 of that Code in respect of the property, but that it was not entrusted to him as a carrier.He may be convicted of criminal breach of trust under the said section 406.

(b) A is charged, under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, with causing grievous hurt. He proves that he acted on grave and sudden provocation. he may be convicted under section 335 of that Code (45 of 1860).

Home     About Us     Privacy Policy     Disclaimer     Sitemap