Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

47. The conflict between these two decisions was resolved of a recent three Judges Bench decision of the Apex Court in Dalbir Singh v. State of U.P. . This case has preferred the view taken in Lakhjit Singh (Supra) and over the view taken by the Apex Court in Sangaraboina Sreenu (Supra).

48. Placing reliance on Section 464(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court has held in Dalbir Singh (Supra) that as a result of an omission, no finding sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charge, unless in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.

49. It would be useful here to quote the opinion of the Court, wherein Hon'ble G.P. Mathur, J speaking for the Bench, mentioned in paragraphs 14 and 17 of the aforesaid report:

"14. Here the Court proceeded w examine the question that if the accused has been charged under Section 302 IPC and the said charge is not - established by evidence, would it be possible to convict him under Section 306 IPC having regard to Section 222 Cr.P.C? Sub-section (1) of Section 222 lays down that when a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination' of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it. Sub-section (2) of the same section lays down that when a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it Section 222 Cr.P.C is in the nature of a general provision which empowers the court to convict for a minor offence even though charge has been framed for a major offence. Illustrations (a) and (b) to the said section also make the position clear. However, there is a separate chapter in the Code of Criminal Procedure, namely, Chapter XXXV which deals with irregular proceedings and their effect. This chapter enumerates various kinds of irregularities which have the effect of either vitiating or not vitiating the proceedings. Section 464 of the Code deals with the effect of omission of frame, or absence of, or error in, charge. Sub-section (1) of this section provides that no finding, sentence or order by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be " deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the court of appeal, confirmation of revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby This clearly shows that any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges shall not result in invalidating the conviction or order of a competent court unless the appellate or revisional court comes to the conclusion that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. In Lakhjit Singh though Section 464 Cr.P.C has not been specifically referred to but the Court altered the conviction from Section 302 to Section 306 IPC having regard to the principles underlying in the said section. In Sangaraboina Sreenu the Court completely ignored to consider the provisions of Section 464 Cr.P.C and keeping in view Section 222 Cr.P.C alone, the conviction of the appellant therein under Section 306 IPC was set aside."

"17. There are a catena of decisions of this Court on the same lines and it is not necessary to burden this judgement by making reference to each one of them. Therefore, in view of Section 464 Cr.P.C. it is possible for the appellate or revisional court to convict an accused for an offence for which no charge was framed unless the court is of the opinion that a failure of justice would in fact occasion. In order to judge whether a failure of justice has been occasioned, it will be relevant to examine whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which he is being convicted and whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him clearly and whether he got a fair chance to defend himself. We are, therefore, of the opinion that Sangaraboina Sreenu was not correctly decided as it purports to lay down as a principle of law that where the accused is charged under Section 302 IPC, he cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 306 IPC "