Omission Of Deceased’s Name Or Defects In Framing Charge Not Fatal Unless It Causes Prejudice Or Failure Of Justice: Allahabad High Court

The Court observed that procedural irregularities in framing of charges are curable under the scheme of the Cr.P.C. and that criminal convictions cannot be set aside on mere technicalities when the accused had full knowledge of the allegations and a fair opportunity to defend themselves during trial.

The Court was hearing a batch of criminal appeals filed against the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellants for offences including murder, attempt to murder, rioting and house trespass arising out of a multiple homicide incident.

One of the principal contentions raised before the High Court was that the charge framed under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC omitted the name of one deceased person and was therefore defective.

A Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar, upon examining Sections 215, 464 and 465 Cr.P.C., observed: “A combined reading of the above provisions shows that the object of these sections is to prevent failure of justice and the irregularity in framing of the charge, is not fatal unless there is prejudice caused to the accused. The mere omission to frame the charge or a mere defect in the charge is no ground for setting aside a conviction.”

The Bench, while stating that “the appellants knew from the beginning that they are charged for murder of deceased…”, further added: “… therefore, the error/ omission in charge with regard to the name of Sunil @ Baba in charge no. 3, has not misled the appellants which would have occasioned the failure of justice and no prejudice has been caused to the appellants due to such omission of name in the charge”.

Advocate Amit Kumar Gaur appeared for the appellants, while Government Advocate G.P. Dixit appeared for the State.

Background

According to the prosecution's case, the incident arose out of a land dispute between the informant and the accused persons. The prosecution alleged that multiple accused persons, armed with country-made firearms, entered the informant’s house and opened indiscriminate fire, resulting in the deaths of four persons and causing firearm injuries to another victim.

After investigation, charges were framed under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149 and 452 IPC. During the appeal, the appellants argued that the charge framed under Section 302 read with 149 IPC mentioned the names of only three deceased persons while omitting the name of one deceased, namely Sunil @ Baba. It was contended that such omission caused prejudice to the accused and vitiated the conviction.

The appellants relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Kali Charan and Others v. State of U.P., contending that the object of framing charges is to clearly inform the accused regarding the accusations levelled against him and that omission in charges causing prejudice would occasion failure of justice.

Court’s Observations

The High Court examined Sections 215, 464 and 465 Cr.P.C. and observed that the statutory scheme clearly provides that omissions or irregularities in framing charges would not invalidate convictions unless actual prejudice or failure of justice is demonstrated.

The Court observed: “Section 215 reads that ‘no error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence or those particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice’.”

The Bench further observed: “Section 464 reads 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 charge, unless, in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby’.”

The Court emphasised that the primary consideration while examining such objections is whether the accused had a fair opportunity to defend himself and whether he was aware of the allegations sought to be established against him during trial.

The Court held: “In judging the question of prejudice as of guilt, the Court must look to the substance of the matter and not to technicalities, and its main concern should be to see whether the accused had a fair trial, whether he knew what he was being tried for, whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him, fairly and clearly and whether he was given a full and fair chance to defend himself.”

The High Court noted that although the charge framed by the Trial Court omitted the name of one deceased person, the entire prosecution case throughout the trial consistently related to the murders of all four deceased persons, including the omitted deceased.

The Court observed that prosecution witnesses had specifically deposed regarding the murder of the omitted deceased and had been extensively cross-examined by the defence on that aspect. The Court further noted that during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., specific questions were also put to the accused regarding the allegations relating to the said deceased.

The Bench reproduced Question No. 9 put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein the accused was specifically confronted with allegations relating to the murder of Sunil @ Baba.

In view of the above, the Court concluded that the accused were fully aware from the beginning that they were facing allegations relating to the murder of all four deceased persons and had suffered no prejudice due to the omission of one name in the formal charge.

The Court remarked: “We are of the considered opinion that such omission in the charge has no adverse bearing on the prosecution case”.

The High Court further reiterated that procedural laws are meant to subserve justice and not defeat it through hyper-technical objections. Referring to precedents of the Supreme Court, the Court observed that criminal convictions cannot be reversed merely because charges were framed imperfectly if the accused knew about the allegations and had an adequate opportunity to defend themselves.

The Bench observed that unless actual prejudice is demonstrated, courts ought not interfere solely on technical defects in charges when the substance of the accusations was clearly conveyed throughout trial proceedings.

Conclusion

The High Court held that omission of the name of one deceased person in the charge framed under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC did not occasion any failure of justice or prejudice to the accused, particularly when the prosecution evidence, cross-examination and examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had all specifically dealt with allegations concerning the said deceased.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed all the criminal appeals and directed the appellants, who were on bail, to surrender before the Trial Court to undergo the remaining part of their sentence, failing which the Trial Court was directed to adopt coercive measures for securing their presence.

Cause Title: Santosh And Others v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:108314-DB)

Appearances

Appellants: Advocates Amit Kumar Gaur and Lav Srivastava.

Respondent: Government Advocate G.P. Dixit, Advocates Nikhil Pratap Singh, Ramesh Kumar, Sanjay Kumar, Sharad Chand Rai, Tripurari Pal

Click here to read/download Judgment