S. 464 CrPC | Conviction Can't Be Challenged Based On Conversion Of Charges Unless 'Failure Of Justice' Is Proved : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that to challenge the conviction based on the alteration of charges, the accused must demonstrate that substantial 'failure of justice' is caused to them by such conversion of charges.

The Court held so while upholding the conviction of the appellants in a murder case where they were initially charged under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC (Common Object) but convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC (Common Intention).

The appellants assailed their conviction on the ground that the High Court did not dwell upon the distinction between common object and common intention while converting the appellants' conviction under section 302 IPC read with section 149 IPC to section 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC.

Affirming the decision of the High Court, the bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih approved the conviction based on the conversion of the charges from Section 302 r/w Section 149 IPC to Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC, and observed that the determination of common intention or common object should primarily be within the domain of the trial courts, and at the most the high courts because of their overlapping nature, and added it is not the Supreme Court's role to adjudicate issues of common intention and common object directly.

Further, the court referred to Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to state that the appellant cannot challenge their conviction solely on the ground of conversion of charges. The Court added that only if the appellants prove that the conversion of charges caused a 'failure of justice' than only they would be entitled to relief.

Section 464 (1) of Cr.P.C. states that no sentence, findings, 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 an appeal, confirmation or revision, a claim of "failure of justice" has been substantiated.

The Court noted that since the appellants were aware of the charges made against them and got a fair chance to defend themselves in the trial, therefore it could not be said that failure of justice was caused to the appellants warranting overturning of conviction.

"Law is well-settled that 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 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 have no hesitation to hold that based on the above parameters, the appellants have fairly and squarely failed in their pursuit to demonstrate any failure of justice, which would impel us to exercise power of the nature contemplated in sub-section (2) of section 464, Cr. PC. We, therefore, see no reason to uphold the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants to the contrary.”, the judgment authored by Justice Dipankar Datta added.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction was upheld.

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. Sanjay Jain, AOR Ms. Ruchika Bhan, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Siddhant Sharma, AOR Mr. Sheetal Dubey, Adv. Ms. Pragya Patel, Adv.

Case Title: BALJINDER SINGH @ LADOO AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB, CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1389 OF 2012

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 748

click here to read/download the judgment