Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
As held by the supreme court a conviction for the substantive offence without a change can be set only if the accused shows that prejudice has been caused to him and that “failure of justice “has occasionally thereby.
In the case of Kamil vs State of Uttar Pradesh the bench comprising of justice R.Bhanumati and Justice Indira Banerjee stated that the procedure followed by the trial court has neither caused prejudice to the appellant nor deprived him of principled of natural justice.It also noted that the accused did not raise any grievance before the high court as to non-framing of charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC that it has caused prejudice to him, but his counsel had contended that the accused ought not to have been convicted by invoking the principle of vicarious liability enshrined by section 34 IPC.
The bench then dismissed the appeal holding that no prejudice has been caused to the accused nor failure of justice has been shown to have been occasioned in this case.
86540
103860
630
114
59824