Conviction Under Section 302 IPC Is Valid Without a Specific Charge if No Substantial Prejudice Is Caused.

The incident occurred on October 24, 1988, involving a land dispute over field No. 1387.

While Jasim Khan (PW-3) and Akilu (PW-2) were ploughing the field, Babu Khan forbade them, led to an altercation, and returned with 17 other named accused armed with firearms.

The accused opened fire, resulting in the death of Badruddin and gunshot injuries to nine others.

The Trial Court (1993) acquitted eight accused but convicted appellants 1-7 under Sections 147, 148, and 307/149 of the IPC, and appellant No. 8 (Hashim Khan) under Section 302 IPC.

During the appeal, appellants 1, 2, 4, and 7 died, leading to abatement against them.

Surviving appellants 3, 5, 6, and 8 challenged the conviction on grounds of parity with acquitted co-accused and improper framing of charges.

1. Whether the conviction of certain accused is sustainable when co-accused were acquitted on the same set of evidence

2. Whether the conviction of appellant No. 8 under Section 302 IPC is valid in the absence of a specific charge under Section 302 simpliciter, having been charged only under Section 302/149 IPC

3. Whether the non-examination of all injured witnesses and the reliance on statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (not put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.) vitiates the trial

The Court applied Section 302 (Murder) and Section 307 (Attempt to Murder) read with Section 149 (Unlawful Assembly) of the IPC.

Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab and Nisar Ali v. State of U.P. establishing that the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is a rule of caution, not law, and acquittal of some accused does not necessitate the acquittal of others if evidence against the latter is cogent.

Five-Judge Constitution Bench ruling in Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P., which holds that a conviction under Section 302 simpliciter is valid despite a charge under Section 302/149 IPC, provided no prejudice or failure of justice is shown.

Section 157 and 155 of the Evidence Act for the corroborative use of Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements.

The Court reasoned that the Trial Court meticulously distinguished the roles of the accused, finding direct overt acts of firing against the appellants while noting a lack of such evidence against those acquitted.

It rejected the plea of parity, noting that in direct eyewitness cases, the court can separate "grain from the chaff".

Regarding the charge against Hashim Khan, the Court observed that since the FIR, testimonies (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3), and medical evidence (post-mortem showing specific lethal gunshot injuries) clearly attributed the fatal shot to him, he had sufficient notice of the accusation; thus, the technical omission of a Section 302 simpliciter charge caused no prejudice.

The Court found substantial compliance with Section 313 Cr.P.C. as Question No. 18 encapsulated the incriminating evidence of the eyewitnesses.

The Court found substantial compliance with Section 313 Cr.P.C. as Question No. 18 encapsulated the incriminating evidence of the eyewitnesses.

It held that the conviction of appellant No. 8 under Section 302 IPC was legally sound despite the charge being framed under Section 302/149 IPC.

The appeal was dismissed. The surviving appellants (Malik Khan, Irshad Khan, Rustam Khan, and Hashim Khan) were directed to surrender within one month to serve their remaining sentences, failing which the CJM, Mirzapur, must issue non-bailable warrants.