Chapter XVII
Section 213 CrPC: When manner of committing offence must be stated
New Law Update (2024)
Section 250 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Punishment
Procedural – Trial / Charge
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
When the nature of the case is such that the particulars mentioned in Sections 211 and 212 do not give the accused sufficient notice of the matter with which he is charged, the charge shall also contain such particulars of the manner in which the alleged offence was committed as will be sufficient for that purpose.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Landmark Judgements
State of Rajasthan v. Kishore (1996):
The Supreme Court underscored the mandatory nature of Section 213, holding that when particulars under Sections 211 and 212 are insufficient to provide adequate notice, the charge must explicitly state the manner in which the alleged offence was committed. Failure to do so, resulting in prejudice to the accused, could lead to the vitiation of the trial.
P.N. Sharma v. State of M.P. (2011):
The Supreme Court emphasized the foundational principle that a charge must be framed with utmost clarity and precision, ensuring that the accused is fully informed of the exact accusation. This allows the accused a fair and reasonable opportunity to prepare and present their defence, a principle directly supported by the requirements of Section 213 in specifying the manner of the offence when general particulars are insufficient.