Conviction for an uncharged offence is sustainable under Section 464 CrPC absent demonstrated failure of justice.

On the intervening night of 24–25 April 2004, the appellant allegedly entered Aswini Nanda’s house at village Laxmiposi and assaulted the inmates with a bhujali.

Aswini’s wife, Pallabi Nanda, and son, Susanta Nanda, suffered fatal incised injuries and died at the spot, while daughters Susmita and Sarmista sustained injuries.

The prosecution relied principally on the eyewitness accounts of PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5, who stated that the assailant was identified as the appellant in torchlight; PW-4 and PW-5 were injured witnesses.

The Additional Sessions Judge, Rairangpur convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 307 and 450 IPC and imposed concurrent sentences, including life imprisonment for murder.

Whether the testimony of the eyewitnesses, including child and injured witnesses, was sufficiently reliable to establish that the appellant committed the assaults and murders?

Whether the discrepancy regarding who focused the torchlight, and the alleged omissions and inconsistencies in the witnesses’ statements, created a reasonable doubt regarding the appellant’s identification?

Whether the absence of an independent eyewitness, motive, or corroborative circumstantial evidence entitled the appellant to acquittal?

Whether the conviction under Section 450 IPC could be sustained despite the apparent absence of a specific charge under that provision?

The Court applied Sections 302 and 307 IPC concerning murder and attempt to murder, and Section 450 IPC concerning house-trespass in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment for life.

It applied the principle that related or interested witnesses cannot be disbelieved solely on that ground; their evidence must be carefully scrutinised for credibility.

Evidence of a child witness is admissible where the witness is capable of understanding and giving rational answers, although it requires close scrutiny and the possibility of tutoring must be excluded; corroboration is a rule of prudence, not an absolute requirement, as explained in Suryanarayana v. State of Karnataka, (2001) 9 SCC 129.

Relying on Alauddin v. State of Assam, (2024) 12 SCC 224, the Court held that every omission is not a contradiction and becomes material only when it concerns a significant and relevant aspect of the prosecution case and satisfies the statutory test under Section 162 CrPC.

Under Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2003) 1 SCC 240, prior identification by test identification parade is not indispensable where the accused was already known to the witnesses.

Finally, Section 464 CrPC permits conviction despite omission or error in framing a charge where no failure of justice has occurred; Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 2 SCC 450, requires consideration of whether the accused knew the basic ingredients and material facts of the offence and had a fair opportunity to defend himself.

The Court found the deaths to be homicidal because PW-6’s post-mortem evidence disclosed deep incised injuries sufficient to cause death, consistent with assault by a bhujali; the injuries on PW-4 and PW-5 also established their presence during the occurrence.

PW-4, an injured eyewitness, gave a consistent account that she saw the appellant in torchlight, knew him previously, and witnessed him assaulting the deceased and other family members.

The Court treated the discrepancy as to whether PW-4 or deceased Susanta focused the torchlight as immaterial because the essential fact was that the assailant’s face became visible and was recognised by witnesses familiar with him.

The alleged statements regarding goggles and a towel were not accepted as sufficient to discredit the prosecution because PW-4 and the Investigating Officer contradicted that version, and the isolated answers of the young PW-5 in response to defence suggestions had to be read in the context of her testimony as a whole.

The Court further held that PW-1’s concealment under the bed did not prevent him from observing the assailant before and during the assault, and the scene photographs supported his account.

The testimony of PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5 was materially consistent, supported by the evidence of PW-3 and the medical evidence, while the absence of an independent eyewitness was natural because the incident occurred inside a house at midnight.

The absence of motive and the unsupported alibi did not create reasonable doubt in the face of reliable direct evidence.

Regarding Section 450 IPC, the Court held that the prosecution case and evidence clearly disclosed the appellant’s unlawful entry into the house with the intention of committing the charged violent offences; the circumstances were also put to him under Section 313 CrPC, and no prejudice or failure of justice was shown.

The conviction under Sections 302, 307 and 450 IPC was therefore upheld, including the conviction under Section 450 IPC despite the absence of a separate specific charge, since no failure of justice was occasioned.

The appeal was dismissed; the appellant’s bail bonds were cancelled and he was directed to be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence.