Law and You >Procedural Laws > BNSS > Framing of Multiple or Alternative Charges (S. 244 BNSS)
The framing of an appropriate charge is a fundamental aspect of a fair criminal trial, as it informs the accused of the precise nature of the allegations and enables an effective defence. However, at the stage of framing charges, the prosecution may not always be able to determine with certainty the exact offence that the evidence will ultimately establish. In many cases, the same act or series of acts may potentially constitute one of several offences, and the true legal character of the conduct becomes clear only after the evidence is led during the trial. To address such situations, Section 244 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides a flexible procedural mechanism. It permits the prosecution to frame multiple or alternative charges where there is genuine uncertainty regarding the offence disclosed by the facts. Further, it empowers the court to convict the accused of the offence proved by the evidence, even if no specific charge for that offence was framed, provided that the offence could have been charged under the section and the accused’s right to a fair trial is not prejudiced.
Framing of Multiple or Alternative Charges (S. 244 BNSS)
Where it is Doubtful what Offence has been Committed (S. 244(1) BNSS):
According to Section 244(1) BNSS, if a single act or series of acts is of such a nature that it is doubtful which of several offences the facts which can be proved will constitute, the accused may be charged with having committed all or any of such offences, and any number of such charges may be tried at once; or he may be charged in the alternative with having committed someone of the said offences.
Illustrations:
(a) A is accused of an act which may amount to theft, or receiving stolen property, or criminal breach of trust or cheating. He may be charged with theft, receiving stolen property, criminal breach of trust and cheating, or he may be charged with having committed theft, or receiving stolen property, or criminal breach of trust or cheating.
(b) In the case mentioned, A is only charged with theft. It appears that he committed the offence of criminal breach of trust, or that of receiving stolen goods. He may be convicted of criminal breach of trust or of receiving stolen goods (as the case may be), though he was not charged with such offence.
(c) A states on oath before the Magistrate that he saw B hit C with a club. Before the Sessions Court A states on oath that B never hit C. A may be charged in the alternative and convicted of intentionally giving false evidence, although it cannot be proved which of these contradictory statements was false.
This provision applies when the prosecution knows what the accused did, but it is uncertain which offence the evidence will ultimately prove. In such a situation, the law allows the prosecution to charge the accused with all the possible offences, and try all those charges together; or frame alternative charges, meaning that the accused is charged with one offence or, alternatively, another offence.
It is to be noted that the uncertainty is not about the facts, but about the legal offence that those facts will establish after the evidence is examined.
There may be one act or several connected acts. Before the trial, it is uncertain which legal offence the available evidence will establish. The prosecution may frame charges for every offence that the facts might support. All those charges may be tried in a single trial. Instead of multiple simultaneous charges, the prosecution may frame alternative charges (e.g., “murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder”).
Examples:
- A assaults B with a heavy stick, and B later dies. Before the trial, it is uncertain whether the evidence will prove murder, or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The prosecution may charge A with both offences, or frame an alternative charge: murder, or in the alternative, culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- A receives money from B and later keeps it. Before the evidence is led, it is unclear whether A dishonestly took the money from the beginning (theft), or A lawfully received the money but later dishonestly misappropriated it (criminal breach of trust). The prosecution may frame alternative charges.
- A receives money from B to purchase goods. It is uncertain whether A intended to deceive B from the outset (cheating), or A honestly received the money but later misappropriated it (criminal breach of trust). The prosecution may charge A with both offences or in the alternative.
- A attacks B with an iron rod. Initially, it is unclear whether the injuries legally amount to voluntarily causing hurt, or voluntarily causing grievous hurt. The prosecution may frame both charges or alternative charges until the medical evidence clarifies the nature of the injuries.
- Police recover a stolen laptop from A. The evidence is uncertain whether A himself stole the laptop, or A knowingly received it after it had been stolen. The prosecution may charge A with theft, with receiving stolen property, or alternatively with either offence.
- A submits a forged educational certificate for employment. Before trial, it is uncertain whether the evidence will prove that A himself forged the certificate, or A merely knew it was forged and used it as genuine. The prosecution may frame charges for forgery, using a forged document as genuine, or alternative charges.
- A sets fire to a pile of rubbish near B’s warehouse. The fire spreads and damages the warehouse. Before evidence is complete, it is uncertain whether the facts establish mischief causing damage, or mischief by fire (arson). The prosecution may frame charges for both offences or alternatively.
Section 244(1) ensures that the prosecution is not prejudiced by uncertainty about the exact legal offence before the evidence is fully presented; the court can determine the correct offence after evaluating all the evidence; and a fresh trial is not required merely because the evidence ultimately proves a different offence from the one initially expected.
Difference between Section 244(1) and 243(3) BNSS:
| Section 244(1) | Section 243(3) |
| This Section is applicable when it is uncertain which offence the proved facts will constitute. | This Section is applicable when the same act or set of acts clearly constitutes two or more offences. |
| There is doubt about the correct legal offence until the evidence is evaluated. | There is no doubt that the conduct falls within multiple offence definitions. |
| The provision protects the prosecution where the exact offence cannot be identified before trial by permitting multiple or alternative charges. | The provision allows the accused to be charged with every offence that the conduct constitutes. |
| Under this provision charges may be framed for all possible offences or in the alternative. | Under this provision charges for all applicable offences may be framed and tried together. |
| There is uncertainty as to which offence the evidence will prove. | There is overlap of offence definitions. |
According to Section 244(2) BNSS, if in such a case the accused is charged with one offence, and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged under the provisions of sub-section (1), he may be convicted of the offence which he is shown to have committed, although he was not charged with it.
This provision applies when
- At the time of framing the charge, the prosecution charges the accused with only one offence, even though there was uncertainty about which offence the evidence would ultimately prove.
- During the trial, the evidence establishes that the accused actually committed a different offence.
- That different offence is one for which the accused could have been charged under Section 244(1).
In that situation, the court may convict the accused of the different offence even though no formal charge for that offence was framed.
Examples:
- A is charged only with murder. At trial, the evidence shows A caused B’s death, but the prosecution fails to prove the intention required for murder. Instead, the evidence proves culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Since this was an offence for which A could have been charged under Section 244(1), the court may convict A of culpable homicide even though that specific charge was not framed.
- A is charged only with cheating. During the trial, the evidence shows A honestly received money from B, but later dishonestly misappropriated it. The evidence proves criminal breach of trust, not cheating. Because criminal breach of trust could have been charged as an alternative under Section 244(1), the court may convict A of criminal breach of trust.
- A is charged with voluntarily causing grievous hurt. Medical evidence later shows that the injuries are not grievous but amount only to simple hurt. The court may convict A of voluntarily causing hurt, even though no separate charge for simple hurt was framed.
The provision prevents a guilty person from escaping conviction merely because the prosecution selected the wrong charge at the outset, where the facts were uncertain, the alternative offence could have been charged under Section 244(1), and the evidence ultimately establishes that different offence. It also avoids the need for a fresh trial solely to frame a new charge.
Section 244(2) does not give the court unrestricted power to convict for any offence. The different offence must:
- arise from the same facts,
- be one that could have been charged under Section 244(1), and
- not prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial. If the absence of a charge has caused prejudice to the defence, the court must address that before recording a conviction.
Scope of Section 244(1) is before trial while that of Section 244(2) is after trial.
Conclusion:
Section 244 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, reflects a pragmatic approach to the framing of charges in criminal proceedings. Recognizing that the precise legal character of an accused’s conduct may not always be apparent at the commencement of a trial, the provision authorizes the framing of multiple or alternative charges where there is genuine uncertainty regarding the offence disclosed by the facts. It also empowers the court to convict the accused of the offence ultimately established by the evidence, even if that offence was not specifically charged, provided it is one that could have been charged under the section and no prejudice is caused to the accused.
The provision strikes a careful balance between procedural flexibility and the principles of natural justice. While it prevents offenders from escaping liability due to technical defects or uncertainty in the framing of charges, it simultaneously safeguards the accused’s right to a fair trial by ensuring that any conviction is based on the same factual foundation and does not occasion a failure of justice.