Legal Provisions of Section 464 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), India.
Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in, charge:
The object of framing a charge is to enable the accused person to know the accusation against him so that he can prepare for his defence. Any omission, irregularity or defect in the framing of charge may cause prejudice to the accused. But it is not necessarily so in all the cases. Therefore, this section provides that a mere omission to frame the charge or any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including misjoinder of charges will be no ground for a de novo trial or a re-trial unless it has occasioned a failure of justice to the accused.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
An accused cannot succeed in setting aside the proceedings against him merely on the ground that the charges framed against him were defective or wrong sections were stated in the chargesheet.
So long as the substance of charge conveyed to the accused is in clear and unambiguous terms, any defect in the charge will be immaterial under Section 464 and the defect or error is curable. The Supreme Court has held that even vagueness of the charge will not render the trial illegal if no prejudice is caused thereby to the accused person.
Image Source : luna.edu
In deciding the question of prejudice, the Court looks to the substance and not to technicalities, and tries to assess whether the accused was given a fair trial and that he knew well about what he is being tried for and whether he was afforded full opportunity to defend himself or not.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
If the answers to these are in the affirmative, Section 464 would apply and the trial will not be vitiated because of non-observance, of a mere technicality. Again, where no objection as to an omission or irregularity in framing of a charge under Section 164 is taken by the accused before the trial Court nor was any prejudice caused to him as a result of such omission or irregularity, the defect is curable under Section 464 of the Code. For instance, misjoinder of charges is a mere irregularity and not an illegality and, therefore, it is curable under the present section.
The Supreme Court in Anna Reddy Sambasiva Reddy & others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, explaining the applicability of Section 464 observed that the section specifies in unmistakable terms that a finding or sentence of a Court shall not be set aside merely on the ground that a charge was not framed or that charge framed was defective unless it has occasioned in prejudice.
Because of the mere defect in language or in narration or in form of the charge, the conviction could not be rendered bad if accused has not been adversely affected thereby. If the ingredients of the section are obvious or implicit, conviction in regard thereto can be sustained irrespective of the fact that the said section number has not been specifically mentioned in the charge sheet.
The Court noted that undoubtedly, fair trial is a sine qua non in criminal justice system but at the same time procedural law contained in Cr. P. C. is designed to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by introduction of hyper technicalities. Every case must depend on its own merits and no straight-jacket formula can be applied.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In the instant case village political rivalry led to double murder by an unlawful assembly of persons who carried axes and sickles. They were charged of rioting (Section 148) and murder (Section 302) and convicted for the offence of murder.
Since all necessary ingredients of Section 149, IPC were implicit in charge framed against the accused, their contention that omission to specifically mention Section 149 in charges caused them prejudice, could not be accepted and their conviction could not be altered merely on this ground.
The Court held that reading of charge of rioting and murder leaves no doubt that, the charge of Section 149, IPC was implicit in their offence and therefore non-mention thereof did not cause any prejudice to the accused and did not render their conviction bad. The Court further noted that the prosecution was not bound to prove which specific overt act was done by which particular accused.
Sub-section (2) provides that where the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision forms an opinion that the omission, irregularity or defect in framing of charge under Section 164 has resulted into failure of justice and the accused has been prejudiced thereby, it may order charge to be framed (if it is a case “f omission to frame a charge) and trial be recommenced from that stage. In the alternative it may order a retrial or a new trial.
According to the proviso, if the Court is of the opinion that the facts of the case are such that no valid charge could be preferred in respect of the facts proved against the accused, it shall quash the conviction.