Facts of the Case
- A, B, C, and D are charged with murder and robbery.
- All four accused claim their intention was only to loot and not to kill.
- The prosecution alleges involvement in both murder and robbery.
Issues in the Case
- How should the charge be framed against the accused given their claim of intention?
- Is it necessary to consider the intention (mens rea) while framing charges?
- Can charges for both murder and robbery be framed simultaneously?
Principles Associated with It
- Under Section 228 of the CrPC, the court must frame a charge if there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused for the offense(s) charged.
- The charge should be precise and clear, specifying the offense(s) the accused is alleged to have committed.
- While framing the charge, the intention (mens rea) is not decided conclusively; it is a question of fact for trial.
- The court can frame charges for both murder and robbery if the evidence prima facie supports such allegations.
- The charge should reflect the nature of the offense as supported by the material on record and must include all relevant offenses.
- The accused’s claim about intention is a matter for the trial and defense, not for determining the charge.
Judgement
- The court should frame charges against A, B, C, and D for both murder and robbery if there is prima facie evidence.
- The charge must be clear and mention both offenses distinctly.
- The claim that their intention was only to loot and not to kill will be considered during the trial as a defense, not at the charge framing stage.
- The trial will proceed on the basis of the framed charges, and the prosecution must prove the actus reus and mens rea for murder and robbery.
- Thus, charges for both murder and robbery must be framed simultaneously, without prejudice to the accused’s defense.