Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Despite Charge Omission in Murder Case: Kamil vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (31 October 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 31 October 2018

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and Indira Banerjee, J.

Can a conviction for murder be upheld if the formal charge sheet did not include a specific section, but the accused was aware of the charges? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the appellant was convicted of murder, even though the charge sheet did not explicitly mention Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This judgment clarifies the importance of ensuring a fair trial, while also considering the technicalities of legal procedure. The bench comprised Justices R. Banumathi and Indira Banerjee, who delivered a unanimous decision.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on January 3, 1986, in Jogipura, Uttar Pradesh. Baboo Khan (PW-3), the maternal uncle of the deceased, Akhlaq, reported that his niece, Parveen, was harassed by Rashid (A1) and Adil (A3) while fetching water. Later that day, at around 4:00 PM, Baboo Khan, along with Akhlaq and Aadil Hussain (PW-2), were going to his shop when they were confronted by Rashid, Nasir (A2), Adil, and Kamil (A4). Rashid was armed with a knife, Nasir with a hockey stick, and Adil and Kamil with danda (sticks).

According to the prosecution, Kamil struck Aadil Hussain on the head with a danda. When Akhlaq tried to stop Nasir, Kamil hit Akhlaq on the head from behind. As Akhlaq tried to escape, Nasir and Adil caught him, and Rashid stabbed him in the chest with a knife. Akhlaq collapsed, and despite being rushed to the hospital, he died. The police filed a charge sheet against all the accused.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Rashid under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder and Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt with common intention. Nasir, Adil, and Kamil were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Kamil was also convicted under Section 323 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt. All were sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder conviction and one month of rigorous imprisonment for the hurt convictions.

Kamil appealed to the High Court of Allahabad, which dismissed his appeal on July 28, 2014, upholding his conviction. Nasir’s appeal to the Supreme Court was also dismissed on January 22, 2015. Kamil then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that he was not specifically charged under Section 302 IPC, and therefore his conviction was not valid.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states, “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”
• Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section addresses the effect of an omission or error in framing a charge. It states, “(1) 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.”

The court emphasized that Section 464 Cr.P.C. allows for a conviction to stand even if there is an omission in framing a charge, provided that no failure of justice has occurred. The court also noted that the procedural laws are designed to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate them with technicalities.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The primary argument of the appellant was that he was not charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and therefore his conviction for murder was not maintainable.
• The appellant contended that the non-framing of the charge under Section 302 IPC had caused prejudice to him.
• The appellant argued that even though the question is a substantive one, he is at liberty to raise the same at any stage.
• The appellant also contended that during his questioning under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the relevant questions showing his sharing of common intention were not put to him.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent argued that according to Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), a conviction is valid even if there is an omission to frame a charge, provided it has not caused a “failure of justice”.
• The respondent submitted that the appellant was well aware of the charges under Section 302 IPC against him.
• The respondent pointed out that the appellant had taken the “plea of alibi”.
• The respondent contended that even if there was an absence of charge, the appellant had not proven that a “failure of justice” had occurred, and thus the conviction should not be interfered with.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the non-framing of a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the appellant vitiated his conviction.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1956 SC 116]*: The Court followed this authority, emphasizing that procedural laws should further the ends of justice and not frustrate them with technicalities.
• Gurbachan Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1957 SC 623]*: The Court followed this authority, stating that courts must look at the substance of the case and not technicalities, ensuring a fair trial.
• Main Pal v. State of Haryana [(2010) 10 SCC 130]*: The Court followed this authority, reiterating the principles laid down in the earlier cases regarding the meaning of “failure of justice”.
• Shamnsaheb M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka [(2001) 2 SCC 577]*: The Court followed this authority, emphasizing that a conviction is valid even with an omission in the charge if it did not cause a failure of justice.
• State of W.B. and Another v. Laisal Haque and Others [(1989) 3 SCC 166]*: The Court followed this authority, reiterating the principles relating to Sections 212, 215 and 464 of the Code.
• State of A.P . v. Thakkidiram Reddy and Others [(1998) 6 SCC 554]*: The Court followed this authority, reiterating the principles relating to Sections 212, 215 and 464 of the Code.
• Dalbir Singh v. State of U.P . [(2004) 5 SCC 334]*: The Court followed this authority, reiterating the principles relating to Sections 212, 215 and 464 of the Code.
• Dumpala Chandra Reddy v. Nimakayala Balireddy and Others [(2008) 8 SCC 339]*: The Court followed this authority, reiterating the principles relating to Sections 212, 215 and 464 of the Code.
• Sanichar Sahni v. State of Bihar [(2009) 7 SCC 198]*: The Court followed this authority, reiterating the principles relating to Sections 212, 215 and 464 of the Code.
• Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 476]*: The Court followed this authority, holding that the accused must show that a defect in framing the charge has prejudiced his case, resulting in a failure of justice.
• Rafiq Ahmad alias Rafi v. State of U.P . [(2011) 8 SCC 300]*: The Court followed this authority, reiterating the principles relating to prejudice in criminal jurisprudence.
• Rattiram and Others v. State of M.P . Through Inspector of Police [(2012) 4 SCC 516]*: The Court followed this authority, reiterating the principles relating to prejudice in criminal jurisprudence.
• Bhimanna v. State of Karnataka [(2012) 9 SCC 650]*: The Court followed this authority, reiterating the principles relating to prejudice in criminal jurisprudence.
• Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar [(2011) 9 SCC 272]*: The Court followed this authority, holding that points relating to errors in framing of charge are not normally considered by the Supreme Court if raised for the first time before it.
• Mangal Singh and Others v. State of Madhya Bharat [AIR 1957 SC 199]*: The Court followed this authority, holding that misjoinder of charges cannot be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that procedural technicalities should not override the substantive justice of a case. The court emphasized that the appellant was fully aware of the charges against him, as evidenced by his plea of alibi and his defense throughout the trial. The court noted that the gist of the charge sheet clearly indicated that the appellant was being charged for murder with common intention. The court also highlighted that the appellant did not raise the issue of non-framing of charge at the earliest opportunity, i.e., in the trial court or the High Court.

The Court also considered the fact that the appellant’s co-accused, Nasir, who was similarly situated, had his appeal dismissed by the Supreme Court. The court reasoned that since the appellant had a fair trial, knew the charges, and had a full opportunity to defend himself, the omission in framing the charge did not cause a failure of justice. The court’s reasoning focused on ensuring that justice was served and that technicalities did not impede the delivery of justice.

The Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

• The appellant was aware of the charges against him.
• The omission to frame a specific charge did not cause prejudice.
• The appellant was given a fair trial and a full opportunity to defend himself.
• The procedural laws are designed to further the ends of justice, not to frustrate them with technicalities.
• The appellant did not raise the objection at the earliest opportunity.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “The object of the Code is to ensure that an accused person gets a full and fair trial along certain well-established and well-understood lines that accord with our notions of natural justice.”
• “…what we are concerned to see is 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 defect in framing of the charges must be so serious that it cannot be covered under Sections 464/465 Cr.P .C, which provide that, an order of sentence or conviction shall not be deemed to be invalid only on the ground that no charge was framed…”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• A conviction can be upheld even if a specific charge was not framed, provided that the accused was aware of the charges and no failure of justice has occurred.
• Procedural technicalities should not override the substantive justice of a case.
• The court will consider whether the accused had a fair trial, knew the charges, and had a full opportunity to defend himself.
• Accused should raise objections regarding the charge at the earliest opportunity.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction can be upheld even if a specific charge was not framed, provided that the accused was aware of the charges and no failure of justice has occurred. This reaffirms the principle that procedural technicalities should not override the substantive justice of a case. This judgment clarifies the application of Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) in cases where there is an omission or error in the framing of charges.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of the appellant. The court held that the omission to frame a specific charge under Section 302 IPC did not vitiate the conviction because the appellant was aware of the charges, had a fair trial, and no failure of justice was caused. The court emphasized that procedural laws should further justice and not frustrate it with technicalities. This judgment underscores the importance of ensuring a fair trial while also considering the practicalities of legal procedure.