Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Apr 21: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the conviction awarded to one Dinesh Kumar by Principal Sessions Judge Leh in a case of rape with minor.
After hearing Advocate Deepika Mahajan with Advocate Atharv Mahajan for the appellant whereas DSGI Vishal Sharma with CGSC Eishan Dadhichi for the UT of Ladakh, Justice Sanjay Dhar observed, “it is clear that when there is an error in framing of charge, the court has to see whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused/convict due to the error or irregularity in framing of a charge”.
“In adjudging the question of prejudice on account of error in framing of charge or omission in framing of a charge, it has to be seen whether the same has led to prejudice or substantial likelihood of it to the accused and whether objection to this effect has been raised by the convict at any stage of the trial”, High Court said, adding “there is no doubt that the particulars of the charge mentioned in the memo of charge against the appellant disclose ingredients of offence of attempt of rape and not the offence of rape but the trial court has clearly mentioned that the appellant has been charged for offence under Section 376 RPC”.
“Therefore, it was clear to the appellant that he was being tried for offence under Section 376 RPC, even though the trial court has committed error in giving details of the particulars of the charge in the memo of charge. The record of the trial court shows that the appellant has at no stage of the trial raised any objection in this regard and has not projected this ground even in the appeal before this court”, Justice Dhar said.
“It was only during the course of arguments that the issue was agitated by the counsel for the appellant. The record clearly shows that the appellant was all along aware of the fact that he was being tried for offence of rape and not for offence of attempt to rape, as such, it cannot be stated that the appellant was subjected to any prejudice while making his defence to the charge for which he was being tried”, High Court said.
With these observations, High Court dismissed the appeal and directed that appellant, who is in jail, shall serve the balance period of sentence.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
