Principles clarified regarding effect of omission to frame proper charge and to put relevant circumstances to accused during their examination under S. 313 (in a murder case) and applicability of Ill. (e) of S. 213 CrPC. Held, As can be seen from the oral evidence, the post-mortem reports and examination of the doctor, Harpal Singh did not receive any bullet injury. Still, the said allegation was put to all the accused in the examination under Section 313. Thus, not only that the charge framed was misleading, but most material circumstance brought on record against the accused in the evidence that Harpal Singh died due to injuries caused by the attack made by accused nos.1,3 and 4 was not put any of the accused. Thus, not only that the charge was misleading but the accused had no opportunity to explain the circumstance in which Harpal Singh was allegedly killed which was brought on record during the trial. Para 30. Further held, The prejudice, in the facts of the case, has occasioned a failure of justice. Para 31. Therefore, it will be unfair to the accused if they are called upon to answer the circumstances appearing against them in evidence about the incident which has taken place more than 22 years back. In fact, such a course will cause serious prejudice to the accused. Para 32. In the circumstances, the charge of committing the murder of Harpal Singh against accused nos. 1,2 and 4 cannot be substantiated. Para 33. They shall be forthwith set at liberty unless they are required to be detained in connection with any other offence. Para 35.
[Kalicharan v. State of U.P., (2023) 2 SCC 583]