Chapter XVII
Section 211 CrPC: Contents of charge
New Law Update (2024)
Section 230 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Punishment
Procedural – Trial / Charge
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) Every charge under this Code shall state the offence with which the accused is charged.
(2) If the law which creates the offence gives it any specific name, the offence may be described in the charge by that name only.
(3) If the law which creates the offence does not give it any specific name so much of the definition of the offence must be stated as to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged.
(4) The law and section of the law against which the offence is said to have been committed shall be mentioned in the charge.
(5) The fact that the charge is made is equivalent to a statement that every legal condition required by law to constitute the offence charged was fulfilled in the particular case.
(6) The charge shall be written in the language of the Court.
(7) If the accused, having been previously convicted of any offence, is liable, by reason of such previous conviction, to enhanced punishment, or to punishment of a different kind, for a subsequent offence, and it is intended to prove such previous conviction for the purpose of affecting the punishment which the Court may think fit to award for the subsequent offence, the fact, date and place of the previous conviction shall be stated in the charge; and if such statement has been omitted, the Court may add it at any time before sentence is passed.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 211(1)
This sub-section lays down the fundamental rule that every charge must clearly specify the exact offence for which the accused is being tried, ensuring transparency and clarity in legal proceedings.
Section 211(7)
This crucial provision mandates that if a previous conviction makes an accused eligible for a harsher penalty, the details of that conviction (fact, date, place) must be explicitly mentioned in the charge, allowing the court to consider it for sentencing.
Landmark Judgements
Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1956):
This landmark Supreme Court case established that errors or omissions in a charge, including its contents, are not fatal to the trial unless they have occasioned a failure of justice. The crucial test is whether the accused was misled or prejudiced by the defect in the charge, thereby impacting their ability to defend themselves.
C. M. Narayanaswami v. State of Madras (1951):
The Supreme Court emphasized the fundamental importance of a clear and precise charge, noting that it serves to give the accused unequivocal notice of the accusations against them. Defects in a charge, while not always leading to acquittal, can prejudice the accused and may warrant correction or retrial if a failure of justice is demonstrated.