Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

49 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.312/2013 with which have the effect of either vitiating or not vitiating the proceedings. Section 464 of the Code deals with the effect of omission to 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 or 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 [Lakhjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 173 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 235] though Section 464 CrPC 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 the said section. In Sangaraboina Sreenu [Sangaraboina Sreenu v. State of A.P., (1997) 5 SCC 348 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 690] the Court completely ignored to consider the provisions of Section 464 CrPC and keeping in view Section 222 CrPC 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 judgment by making reference to each one of them. Therefore, in view of Section 464 CrPC, 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 50 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.312/2013 with 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 [Sangaraboina Sreenu v. State of A.P., (1997) 5 SCC 348 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 690] 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."