Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed
Section 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with where it is doubtful what offence has been committed. 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; The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(1) 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 some one of the said offences.
(2) 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.
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.
Section 221, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 244 Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed Text carried over almost unchanged 99%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Kaushik Chaterjee vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The question of territorial jurisdiction in criminal proceedings is a question of fact that must be established through evidence and cannot be decided at the transfer petition stage. The trial court, not the Supreme Court, is the appropriate forum to decide jurisdictional issues after evidence is led on the place of commission of the offence and other relevant factors enumerated in Sections 177 to 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, transfer petitions seeking transfer on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction must be dismissed, leaving it open to the parties to raise and have the trial court decide the jurisdictional issue during the trial.
On this section: Allows any Court competent to inquire into or try any of the offences to inquire into or try all of them.
-
Kailash Kumar Singla vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an investigator discovers illegal gratification during investigation of a bribery case and subsequently discovers disproportionate assets of the accused, the registration of a separate FIR for disproportionate assets does not constitute abuse of investigative power or violation of Section 300 CrPC, provided the investigator conducts independent inquiry into the accused's income and expenditure. The disproportionate assets case is a distinct offense from the bribery case, and successive FIRs for such distinct offenses do not fall within the prohibition against double jeopardy or the principle established in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala.
On this section: Requirement for clarity on the offense committed; petitioner argued this section was violated, but court held it was not applicable as the offense was clear
-
Pawan Kumar vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Alternative charges cannot be framed under Section 302 IPC and Section 306 IPC simultaneously because these are distinct offences with different ingredients. The framing of alternative charges is permissible only when doubt exists as to the nature of the offence, not when facts are in doubt. When a trial court exercises its power under Section 216 Criminal Procedure Code to alter charges from Section 306 IPC to Section 302 IPC, it must consider the case diary and medical report, and must follow proper procedure to ensure the accused is not prejudiced and has adequate opportunity to meet the altered charge.
On this section: Provision regarding framing of alternative charges. Permits alternative charges only when doubt exists as to the nature of the offence, not when facts are in doubt. Cannot be applied to distinct offences.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… There were divergent opinions of different courts, and therefore, this issue was decided by the three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court; Hon'ble K.T. Thomas, Hon'ble R.P. Sethi and Hon'ble B.M. Agarwal, JJJ. In this regard Sections 221 and 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be looked into as they deal with the power of criminal court to convict an accused for an offence which is not included in the charge. The primary condition for application of Section 221 of the Code is that the Court should have felt doubt, at the time of framing …
-
… Section 304-B of the IPC is a graver offence than Section 306 of the IPC. Scope of Section 306 of the IPC is wider in its compass. 17. Sections 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the situation when it is doubtful as to what offence has been committed. For ready reference Section 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is reproduced below : > "221. Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed – (1) 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 …
-
… accused who has been charged for offence under section 304-B can also be convicted for offence under section 306 I.P.C. if the Court, after appreciating the evidence, hold that there was no demand of dowry soon before the death or deceased was not subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry. Furthermore, section 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically state that if a single act or series of acts are such a nature that it is doubtful as to which of the several offences are made out from the facts to be proved, accused may be charged for alternative offences. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the present case …
Questions about Section 221
What have the courts held on Section 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Kaushik Chaterjee vs State of Haryana (30 Sep 2020) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Allows any Court competent to inquire into or try any of the offences to inquire into or try all of them. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2003 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 221, section 221 CRPC, section 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Kaushik Chaterjee vs State of Haryana (30 Sep 2020).
What should I read with Section 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 244 (Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 221, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.