Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Section 212 and 464, Leading Case (Mohan Singh (Appellant) V State of Bihar (Respondent))

 Facts:

The facts of the case are that the informant Shri Vikas Kumar Jha gave a fardbeyan to the effect that at about 5.00 P.M. on 23.7.2005, he had received a call on his telephone number inquiring about his elder brother Shri Anil Kumar Jha. The informant stated before the police that his elder brother, the owner of a medical store, on the said date had been out of town. He submitted that he had communicated the same to the caller. Upon such reply, the caller disclosed himself as Mohan Singh, the appellant herein, and asked the informant to send him Rs.50,000/-. The informant submitted that he had similar conversations with the caller three to four times in the past. The caller threatened him that since the demand of money had not been fulfilled, the informant should be ready to face the consequences. Upon his elder brother’s return, the informant had narrated the events to him. However, his elder brother did not take the threat seriously. Later, the informants elder brother and their father, Shri Sureshwar Jha, had been shot at while they were in their medical store. The brother of the informant died by the his injured father told him that while Niraj Singh cleared the medical store of all the other people, Laxmi Singh had fired shots at him and Anil Kumar Jha with an A.K. 47 rifle, before fleeing from the scene. After narrating such events, his father became unconscious. The informant thus stated that his father and brother had been attacked by Laxmi Singh and Niraj Singh at the instance of Mohan Singh for not having paid the extortion money. The informant said so on the identification of the voice of the telephone caller as that of the appellant. These statements of the informant were supported by the informant’s father Sureshwar Jha, and his other brother Sunil Kumar Jha. On the basis of this fardbeyan, Motihari Town Police Station Case was registered against the appellant Mohan Singh, Laxmi Singh, Niraj Singh and others. 

The learned Sessions Court found the appellant guilty and the same was upheld in the High Court 

The appellant went to the supreme court with a dispute that the charges framed against him were devised with an error, hence, there is a failure of justice under section 464 and 212 CrPC. The charges framed against the appellant are set out below:

“FIRST - That you, on or about the day of at about or during the period between 23.7.05 & 3.8.05 agreed with Laxmi Narain Singh, Niraj Singh & Pankaj Singh to commit the murder U/s 302, IPC of Anil Jha, in the event of his not fulfilling your demand, as extortion of a sum of Rs.50,000/- and besides the above said agreement you did telephone from Motihari Jail to Vikash Jha in pursuance of the said agreement extending threat of dire consequences if the demand was not met and then on 3.8.05 the offence of murder punishable with death was committed by your companions Laxmi Narain Singh and Niraj Singh and you thereby committed the offence of criminal conspiracy to commit murder of Anil Jha and seriously injured Sureshwar Jha and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and within my cognizance.

 Issue:

Whether missing the provision number in an elaborately framed charge causes failure of justice u/s 212 and 464 CrPC?

Ratio Decidendi: 

In Rawalpenta Venkalu and another v. The State of Hyderabad reported in AIR 1956 SC 171, the learned Judges came to the conclusion that although Section 34 is not added to Section 302, the accused had clear notice that they were being charged with the offence of committing murder in pursuance of their common intention. Therefore, the omission to mention Section 34 in the charge has only an academic significance and has not in any way misled the accused. In the instant case the omission of charge of Section 302 has not in any way misled the accused inasmuch as it is made very clear that in the charge that he agreed with the others to commit the murder of Anil Jha. Following the aforesaid ratio there is no doubt that in the instant case from the evidence led by the prosecution the charge of murder has been brought home against the appellant.

Moreover, In K. Prema S. Rao and another v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao and others reported in (2003) 1 SCC 217 this Court held that though the charge specifically under Section 306 IPC was not framed but all the ingredients constituting the offence were mentioned in the statement of charges and in paragraph 22 at page 226 of the report, a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that mere omission or defect in framing of charge does not disable the criminal court from convicting the accused for the offence which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. 

Further, the court describing failure of justice stated,in the case of Dalbir Singh v. State of U.P., this Court held that in view of Section 464 Cr.P.C. explained that in order to judge whether there is a failure of justice the Court has 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. If we follow these tests, we have no hesitation that in the instant case the accused had clear notice of what was alleged against him and he had adequate opportunity of defending himself against what was alleged against him.

In view of such consistent opinion of this Court, we are of the view that no prejudice has been caused to the appellant for non-mentioning of Section 302 I.P.C. in the charge since all the ingredients of the offence were disclosed. The appellant had full notice and had ample opportunity to defend himself against the same and at no earlier stage of the proceedings, the appellant had raised any grievance Apart from that, on overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case we do not find that the appellant suffered any prejudice nor has there been any failure of justice.

Judgement:

The Court upheld the conviction.