Introduction

BNSS Section 244 serves as a critical procedural safeguard within the Indian criminal justice system, specifically addressing scenarios where the facts of a case are clear, but the specific legal offense they constitute is ambiguous. In the complex landscape of criminal law, actions performed by an accused person can often overlap between different legal definitions. This section ensures that the pursuit of justice is not derailed by technical uncertainties regarding the exact labeling of a crime at the initial stage of a trial.

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, represents a modern overhaul of India’s criminal procedure, replacing the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. Section 244 of the BNSS corresponds to Section 221 of the old CrPC. Its primary importance lies in its ability to prevent a “failure of justice.” It empowers courts to proceed with a trial even when the prosecution is unsure whether an act falls under one specific offense or another, ensuring that an accused person cannot evade accountability simply because their crime is difficult to categorize. Understanding this provision is essential for comprehending how Indian courts balance fairness to the accused with the necessity of effective prosecution.

Background and Overview

To understand BNSS Section 244, one must first appreciate the general rule of criminal trials: specificity. Typically, the law mandates that an accused person must be informed of the exact charge against them to prepare a proper defense. If a person is accused of murder, they cannot be suddenly convicted of theft without warning. However, strict adherence to this rule can sometimes lead to unjust outcomes, especially in cases where the facts are messy or open to interpretation.

BNSS Section 244 addresses the “grey areas” of criminal acts. It originated from the legislative realization that human behavior does not always fit neatly into the predefined boxes of the penal code. For example, if a person is entrusted with property and that property goes missing, it might be “Theft,” “Criminal Breach of Trust,” or “Criminal Misappropriation.” The act (missing property) is undeniable, but the legal label depends on proving specific intent or the exact manner of taking.

This section provides the legal machinery to handle such ambiguity. It fits into the larger system of “Framing of Charges,” acting as an exception to the rule of specificity. It allows the court to say, “We know you did something illegal based on these facts, and we will determine the exact legal name of the crime during the trial.” This flexibility is a cornerstone of ensuring that the substantive truth prevails over procedural technicalities.

Key Features or Main Points

BNSS Section 244 is structured to handle doubt at two distinct stages: the beginning of the trial (charging) and the end of the trial (judgment).

(a) Charging with Multiple or Alternative Offences

Subsection (1) governs the framing of charges. It states that if a single act or a series of acts is of such a nature that it is doubtful which of several offenses the facts will prove, the accused may be charged with all or any of such offenses.

• Cumulative Charges: The court can charge the accused with Offense A, Offense B, and Offense C simultaneously.
• Alternative Charges: The court can charge the accused with Offense A or Offense B. This “either/or” capability is the defining feature of this section, allowing the prosecution to keep its options open as evidence unfolds.

(b) Conviction for a Distinct Offence

Subsection (2) provides the authority for the final verdict. It applies when an accused is charged with one offense (e.g., Theft), but the evidence presented during the trial proves they committed a different offense (e.g., Criminal Breach of Trust). Even if the accused was never formally charged with the second offense, the court can convict them of it.

• Condition: This is only permitted if the case falls under the category of “doubtful nature” described in Subsection (1).
• Safeguard: It prevents the accused from being acquitted on a technicality just because the prosecutor picked the wrong label initially.

(c) Application to False Evidence

The illustrations provided in the law highlight a specific application regarding perjury (giving false evidence). If a witness makes two contradictory statements on oath—one during investigation and one during trial—it is often impossible to prove which specific statement is the lie. However, the contradiction itself proves that one of them is false. Section 244 allows the court to charge the person in the alternative and convict them of giving false evidence, bypassing the need to pinpoint the exact lie.

Step-by-Step Process or Application

The application of BNSS Section 244 follows a structured judicial process designed to uphold fairness while ensuring legal efficacy.

1. Evaluation of Material The process begins when the Magistrate or Judge reviews the police report and evidence. They identify that the sequence of events is clear (e.g., “A took the money”), but the legal classification is ambiguous (e.g., “Was it theft or breach of trust?”).

2. Framing the Charge Recognizing the ambiguity, the Judge invokes Section 244. They draft a charge sheet that lists the alternative offenses. The Judge explains to the accused: “You are being charged with Act X. This act may constitute Offense A or Offense B. You are being tried for both possibilities.”

3. Leading Evidence The trial proceeds. Witnesses testify to the facts of the case. The prosecution attempts to prove the elements of the crime. The defense is given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses regarding the facts that support either charge.

4. Judicial Determination At the end of the trial, the Judge reviews the proven facts. If the facts clearly establish Offense B, even though the primary focus was Offense A, the Judge applies Subsection (2). The judgment will state that while Offense A was not fully established, the evidence conclusively proves Offense B.

5. Conviction and Sentencing The accused is convicted of the proven offense. The sentence is passed according to the specific punishment prescribed for that offense in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Practical Relevance and Use Cases

BNSS Section 244 is not just a theoretical provision; it is frequently applied in high-volume areas of criminal litigation.

In the realm of property crimes, this section is indispensable. Consider a case where a servant is found with their employer’s stolen watch. Did the servant steal it from the drawer (Theft)? Or did the employer give it to the servant to clean, and the servant ran away with it (Criminal Breach of Trust)? Or did the servant find it on the floor and decide to keep it (Criminal Misappropriation)? The act of possession is the same, but the legal intent differs. Section 244 allows the court to try the servant for all three possibilities ensuring the guilty act is punished regardless of the specific legal bucket it falls into.

In corporate and financial fraud, the lines are often blurred. A company director diverting funds might be committing Cheating, Breach of Trust, or Misappropriation. The documentation for these crimes is often identical. This section allows prosecutors to pursue the case without fear that a slight misinterpretation of a contract clause will lead to an acquittal.

It ensures that accountability is maintained. Without this section, defense lawyers could easily win cases by arguing, “My client committed Crime B, but you charged him with Crime A, so you must let him go.” Section 244 closes this escape route, reinforcing the principle that the law is interested in the substance of the act, not just the form of the charge.

Impact of Technology and Modern Developments

The modernization of the Indian legal system through the BNSS involves significant technological integration, which interacts with Section 244 in important ways.

Precision in Evidence Digital forensics often resolve the “doubt” that necessitates Section 244. In the past, it might have been unclear if a document was forged or stolen. Today, metadata and digital logs can pinpoint the exact nature of the manipulation. While this reduces the frequency with which the section is used for evidentiary ambiguity, it remains vital for legal ambiguity.

Cybercrime Applications Conversely, the rise of cybercrime has given Section 244 new life. A single click by a hacker can constitute “Data Theft,” “Identity Theft,” “Unauthorised Access,” and “Financial Fraud.” The nature of digital acts is inherently multi-faceted. Courts increasingly rely on Section 244 to frame broad charges against cyber-criminals to ensure that if one technical charge fails (e.g., due to a jurisdictional technicality in the IT Act), a parallel charge under the BNSS (like Cheating) sticks.

Automated Record Keeping Modern e-courts systems and the Inter-operable Criminal Justice System (ICJS) track charges digitally. When charges are framed in the alternative under Section 244, the digital system ensures that these alternatives are flagged for all stakeholders. This transparency helps the defense counsel access all relevant case laws for every alternative charge, ensuring a fairer trial despite the complexity.

Regional or Country-Specific Context

BNSS Section 244 is a specific enactment of the Parliament of India, reflecting the nation’s unique legal requirements.

In India, the legal system is adversarial, meaning the judge plays the role of a neutral arbiter. However, provisions like Section 244 give the judge a more active role in ensuring justice is done. It empowers the judge to correct the course of a trial if the evidence points in a different direction than the police initially thought.

This section is governed by precedents set by the Supreme Court of India. The apex court has repeatedly clarified that while this section is powerful, it cannot be used to “ambush” an accused. The “doubt” must be genuine and based on facts, not on a lazy investigation.

The implementation of this section varies slightly across different states in India depending on the volume of cases. In states with high pendency, judges often use this provision to avoid retrials. If a charge is defective, rather than ordering a fresh investigation (which takes years), they use Section 244 to convict on the evidence available, prioritizing the conclusion of long-pending matters.

Challenges or Limitations

While effective, BNSS Section 244 faces practical challenges that can complicate legal proceedings.

Prejudice to the Accused The most significant limitation is the risk of prejudice. If an accused focuses their entire defense strategy on disproving “Theft,” they might not present evidence relevant to “Breach of Trust.” If the court suddenly convicts them of Breach of Trust at the end, the accused may claim they were denied a fair hearing. Courts must tread carefully to ensure the new offense is not so distinct that it catches the defense off guard.

Investigative Complacency There is a systemic risk that police officers may rely on this section as a crutch. Instead of conducting a thorough investigation to pinpoint exactly what crime occurred, investigating officers might file vague charges, expecting the court to sort it out using Section 244. This can burden the courts with the task of doing the police’s work.

Legal Complexity For the average citizen involved in a legal battle, “alternative charges” can be confusing. It makes the legal process seem uncertain. An accused person might ask, “Am I a thief or a cheater?” and the legal answer “We aren’t sure yet, maybe both” does not inspire confidence in the clarity of the legal system.

Benefits and Importance

The overriding value of BNSS Section 244 lies in its commitment to substantive justice.

Closing Loopholes Its greatest benefit is preventing the guilty from escaping on technicalities. It recognizes that criminal intent (mens rea) often manifests in ways that straddle multiple legal definitions. By focusing on the act rather than the label, it ensures that criminal conduct is penalized.

Judicial Economy It saves immense time and resources. In the absence of this law, a wrong charge would lead to an acquittal, followed by a re-arrest, a new charge sheet, and a fresh trial for the correct offense. Section 244 consolidates this entire cycle into a single trial, which is crucial for a judicial system facing a heavy backlog of cases.

Flexibility It provides necessary flexibility to the judiciary. Trials are dynamic; witnesses turn hostile, new documents emerge, and perspectives shift. This section allows the legal charge to evolve alongside the evidence, ensuring the final verdict reflects the truth as it stands at the end of the trial, not just as it appeared at the beginning.

Conclusion

BNSS Section 244 remains a pivotal element of India’s modern criminal procedure. By acknowledging the complexities of human conduct and the occasional ambiguity of facts, it equips courts with the necessary tools to deliver justice effectively. It strikes a difficult balance between the accused’s right to know the charges and the society’s right to punish criminal acts. As the Indian legal system transitions into the era of the BNSS, the intelligent application of this section will continue to play a major role in ensuring a fair, efficient, and logical judicial process.

Also read: BNSS Section 241

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: What is the primary function of BNSS Section 244?

A1: It allows courts to charge an accused with multiple alternative offenses when the nature of the crime is doubtful based on the facts.

Q2: Does this section allow conviction for a crime not formally charged?

A2: Yes, if the evidence proves a different offense that falls within the scope of the doubt, the court can convict for that offense without a specific original charge.

Q3: How does BNSS Section 244 differ from the old CrPC?

A3: It corresponds to Section 221 of the CrPC, retaining the same core principles but operating under the modernized framework of the BNSS.

Q4: Can this section be used for any two offenses?

A4: No, it only applies when the facts are the same but the legal nature of the offense is doubtful; it cannot connect two completely unrelated crimes.

Q5: Is this section useful in cases of perjury?

A5: Yes, it is specifically used to charge a witness who makes contradictory statements on oath, even if it is unclear which specific statement is false.

Q6: Does the accused have the right to defend against the alternative charge?

A6: Yes, the court must ensure that the accused is not prejudiced and has a fair opportunity to defend against the facts constituting the alternative offense.

Q7: Who decides if the nature of the offense is “doubtful”?

A7: The Magistrate or Judge presiding over the case decides this during the stage of framing charges or delivering the judgment.

Q8: Can a higher court overturn a conviction made under this section?

A8: Yes, if the higher court finds that the accused was misled or prejudiced by the absence of a specific charge, the conviction can be set aside.

Q9: Why is this section important for victims of crime?

A9: It ensures that a perpetrator does not go free simply because of a technical error in naming the crime, providing justice to the victim.

Q10: Does technology affect the use of BNSS Section 244?

A10: Yes, while digital evidence can reduce factual doubt, the section remains vital for legal ambiguities, especially in complex cybercrimes.