In a detailed and thoughtful judgment, the Kerala High Court has clarified the scope and applicability of Section 222 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which permits a conviction for a lesser offence even when no specific charge has been framed under that particular section, provided the facts established during the trial justify such conviction. This ruling serves to reinforce a key principle of criminal jurisprudence — that the administration of justice must not be defeated merely due to procedural technicalities, especially when the facts and evidence on record substantiate the commission of a lesser, cognate offence.
The matter before the Court concerned an accused who was originally charged with a serious offence. However, during the course of the trial, the evidence presented failed to conclusively establish guilt under the original charge. Instead, the facts that were proven pointed towards the commission of a lesser offence. The trial court, applying the provisions under Section 222 CrPC, convicted the accused for the minor offence even though it had not been specifically charged. The accused challenged this conviction, arguing that he had been denied a fair trial since he had not been formally informed or charged with the lesser offence, and hence had no opportunity to prepare an adequate defence.
The Kerala High Court examined the matter in the light of the statutory language of Section 222 CrPC, which states that when a person is charged with a criminal offence that includes within it the components of a lesser offence, and if the evidence does not support the more serious charge but does support the minor one, the court is empowered to convict for the latter. The Court observed that this provision aims to uphold justice by enabling courts to return a verdict based on the facts proven during trial, even if those facts only partially support the original charge.
In interpreting the section, the Court emphasized that there are certain conditions that must be satisfied before a conviction under Section 222 can be deemed valid. The lesser offence must be included within the major offence — meaning that its legal ingredients are subsumed within the broader charge. Additionally, there must not be any material prejudice caused to the accused; the conviction must not violate the fundamental right to a fair trial, and the accused must not be taken by surprise or denied an opportunity to present a defence.
The Court stressed that the concept of a fair trial does not always necessitate that each charge be precisely framed if the facts of the case clearly indicate the possibility of a lesser included offence. It is enough if the accused had a reasonable opportunity to understand the nature of the proceedings and the facts relied upon by the prosecution. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that if the accused had full knowledge of the prosecution’s case and was afforded the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and lead evidence in defence, then no prejudice could be said to have been caused merely because a formal charge under the lesser offence was not framed.
In its judgment, the Court also referred to the safeguards embedded in other provisions of the CrPC, such as Sections 216 and 464, which respectively permit alteration of charges during trial and protect convictions from being vitiated by errors or omissions in the charge, provided no prejudice is caused. These provisions, read with Section 222, demonstrate the legislature’s intent to balance procedural rigour with substantive justice. The Court thus ruled that when a lesser offence is logically and legally included in the greater offence, and when the evidence on record proves the commission of such a minor offence, a conviction under that provision is lawful — even in the absence of a formal charge.
In the specific case under review, the High Court found that all the necessary legal ingredients of the lesser offence had been clearly established during trial. The Court also noted that the accused had not shown any tangible prejudice or denial of opportunity in defending himself. As such, the Court upheld the conviction, affirming that the trial had been conducted fairly, and the use of Section 222 CrPC was both appropriate and just.
This judgment carries far-reaching implications for the criminal justice system. It upholds the principle that procedural formalities should not stand in the way of delivering justice. At the same time, it reinforces that such procedural flexibility must always be exercised with caution and fairness. Courts must ensure that the rights of the accused are not undermined, and that any deviation from strict procedural norms is justified by both the evidence and the circumstances of the trial.
Moreover, this ruling serves as guidance for trial courts across the country. It clarifies that when there is a mismatch between the original charge and the facts established during trial, judges can consider convicting under a lesser offence, but must do so only after ensuring that the accused has had a fair and informed chance to contest the evidence. The decision ensures that the criminal process remains focused on substantive truth rather than procedural entanglement, while still preserving the essential protections owed to every accused individual under the Constitution.
In conclusion, the Kerala High Court has struck a careful and principled balance between procedural justice and substantive fairness. The decision demonstrates the Court’s commitment to ensuring that technical lapses do not result in acquittals where guilt is otherwise evident, while also affirming that every accused must receive a fair trial with full opportunity to defend against any offence for which they might be convicted. The ruling thus reinforces the idea that criminal justice must be both just and fair — not only in outcome, but also in process.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.