Omission of a deceased's name in a multi-victim murder charge does not vitiate conviction absent prejudice.

The informant, Om Prakash (a soldier on leave), alleged that on August 19, 2001, nine accused individuals (the appellants) armed with firearms entered his courtyard due to a prior land dispute.

The appellants indiscriminately shot and killed the informant’s wife (Savitri Devi), father (Sarman Singh), son (Dharmendra Singh), and nephew (Sunil @ Baba), while also injuring his other son, Jitendra.

The FIR was lodged within two and a half hours at Police Outpost Kushmura.

The Trial Court (Mainpuri) convicted all appellants under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, and 452 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment for murder.

The appellants challenged this conviction on grounds of defective charges, lack of motive, and unreliable witnesses.

The court applied Section 215 and Section 464 of the Cr.P.C., which stipulate that errors or omissions in a charge are not material unless they mislead the accused and cause a failure of justice.

The court followed Kali Charan v. State of U.P. regarding the object of framing charges.

The court invoked Section 149 IPC regarding the liability of members of an unlawful assembly for acts committed in prosecution of a common object.

It further relied on Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., establishing that the testimony of an injured witness possesses a "built-in guarantee" of presence and higher reliability.

The court relied on Thaman Kumar v. State of Union Territory of Chandigarh, holding that motive is immaterial where ocular evidence is trustworthy.

The Court found that although the name of Sunil @ Baba was omitted from Charge No. 3, the appellants were fully aware of the allegation as they were specifically questioned about his murder during their Section 313 Cr.P.C. statements; thus, no prejudice occurred.

Regarding the evidence, the Court noted that the incident occurred in broad daylight and the presence of the informant and his brother was natural.

The testimony of P.W. 2 (Jitendra), an injured witness, was prioritized because an injured party is unlikely to spare the real assailant to falsely implicate others.

The Court dismissed the defense's argument regarding "minor contradictions," stating that in a lengthy cross-examination spanning months/years, slight variations are natural and do not shake the "substratum of the prosecution story".

The medical evidence (multiple gunshot wounds) and the ballistic report (matching a recovered firearm to cartridges at the scene) corroborated the ocular accounts.

The Court held that even if the land dispute was ostensibly settled, the resulting "ire" was sufficient motive, though strictly unnecessary given the direct evidence.

It held that the procedural error in the charge did not vitiate the trial under Section 464 Cr.P.C.

The Court ordered the appellants, who were on bail, to surrender to serve their remaining sentences.