Is omission to frame charge for offence under Section 302 IPC a curable irregularity? SC answers

The Supreme Court today held that when the case of the prosecution is on the basis that the role of accused is that of conspirators but there is a failure to prove the charge of conspiracy, the appellants could not be convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC..The judgment rendered by Justices L Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta in an appeal by the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased who had been convicted by the trial court and High Court for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC..The facts of the case are as follows..The marriage of the deceased Sahitya was solemnised with L Manjunatha on March 10, 2006. An FIR was lodged on August 25, that Sahitya had been killed by the two appellants along with L Manjunatha, Lakshmi, Raghavendra and Arunakumari. On the basis of FIR, the investigation was conducted..The trial court convicted the appellants and L Manjunatha, husband of the deceased for having conspired with accused Nos. 4 and 5 for the murder of Sahitya. However, in appeal, the High Court acquitted L Manjunatha but maintained the conviction and sentence upon the appellants leading to the current appeal..Counsel for the appellants argued that the High Court has committed patent illegality in convicting the appellants even when there was no allegation of demand of dowry or harassment proved against the appellants. Further, the charge of the conspiracy to cause the death of the deceased was also not proved..Thus, it was their contention that in the absence of any evidence of conspiracy and in the absence of any charge against the appellants of having taken the life of the deceased, the appellants could not be convicted on the basis of probabilities. The prosecution has to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt by complete chain of circumstances leading to a firm finding that the appellants and the appellants alone have taken the life of the deceased. In the absence of such finding, the conviction of the appellants is not tenable, it was argued..The Supreme Court noted that the entire prosecution case proceeded on the basis that accused Nos. 4 and 5 were the actual assailants. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 were never apprehended. The charge of conspiracy against the appellants with accused Nos. 4 and 5 did not find favour either with the trial court or with the High Court, the Supreme Court noted..In such a scenario, the conviction of the appellants was probably on the basis of the lack of explanation of the injuries suffered by the deceased, the Supreme Court observed..Charge against the appellants was that accused Nos. 4 and 5 conspired with the appellants by receiving money. However, both the Courts below found that the charge of conspiracy was not proved..Whether, in these circumstances, the appellants could be convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC even without there being a charge to this effect? In other words, the question was whether omission to frame an alternative charge under Section 302 IPC is an illegality that cuts at the root of the conviction or whether it is a curable irregularity?.Answering the same, the Court stated that the issue has been examined by the Supreme Court from time to time..In Willie (William) Slaney v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had held that if the accused is told and clearly understands the nature of the offence for which he is being tried, if the case against him is fully and fairly explained to him and he is afforded a full and fair opportunity of defending himself, then, mere mistakes in procedure, inconsequential errors and omissions in the trial are regarded as venal by the Code and the trial is not vitiated unless the accused can show substantial prejudice..In Main Pal v. State of Haryana the Supreme Court had held that the accused is entitled to know with certainty and accuracy, the exact nature of the charge against him, and unless he has such knowledge, his defence will be prejudiced. Where an accused is charged with having committed offence against one person but on the evidence led, he is convicted for committing offence against another person, without a charge being framed in respect of it, the accused will be prejudiced, resulting in a failure of justice, the Court had held in that case..Applying the above principles above, the Court held that since the prosecution story in the current case proceeded on the basis that the role of the appellants is that of conspirators but having failed to prove the charge of conspiracy, the appellants could not be convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Such conviction has caused not only prejudice but also a failure of justice. Therefore, the conviction cannot be sustained, the Court ruled..It, therefore, allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellants of all charges..[Read Judgment]