Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the appellant’s conviction despite omission of a specific murder-with-common-intention charge against him. Under Section 464 CrPC, the defect required proof of actual prejudice and failure of justice. The chargesheet, trial course, questioning and defence demonstrated that he understood the murder allegation and had a fair opportunity to meet it. The objection had not been raised below, and no resulting failure of justice was established. The appeal was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether omission of the specific charge invalidated conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
- Whether the appellant had suffered actual prejudice or failure of justice.
Provisions considered
- Section 464, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973An omitted or defective charge does not by itself invalidate a competent court’s conviction. The inquiry is whether it actually caused failure of justice, assessed through notice of the real case and the opportunity to defend. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23)
Held
- The relevant inquiry was substantive fairness: whether the accused knew the essential accusation, had it fairly explained and could fully defend himself. A technical charging defect alone was insufficient. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
- Although the specific charge was omitted, the chargesheet alleged shared intention in the killing. The course of trial, the incriminating question put to the appellant and his defence showed awareness of the actual murder allegation. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)
- The appellant had not complained of the defect or resulting prejudice before the trial court or High Court. On the record, neither prejudice nor failure of justice was shown, so the conviction warranted no interference. (¶¶ 19, 21, 22, 23, 24)
Result
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence left undisturbed, no prejudice or failure of justice from the charging omission having been established.