Charge defects do not vitiate conviction absent prejudice; conspiracy can be proved by voice identification and surrounding circumstances.

Omission to mention Section 302 IPC in the charge did not vitiate the murder-conspiracy conviction because the charge clearly informed the accused of the substance of the allegation, he raised no objection at trial or before the HC, and no prejudice or failure of justice was shown. The Court applied the principle that defects in charge are not fatal unless they mislead the accused. On criminal conspiracy, the SC held that voice identification by a witness familiar with the caller, reinforced by threatening calls, call records and surrounding circumstances, was sufficient to prove agreement under Section 120B IPC. The concurrent findings were not shown to be perverse, so the conviction was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether omission to mention Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in the charge vitiated the conviction for murder conspiracy in the absence of prejudice or failure of justice; (ii) Whether the evidence, including voice identification and surrounding circumstances, was sufficient to sustain the conviction for criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Issue (i): Whether omission to mention Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in the charge vitiated the conviction for murder conspiracy in the absence of prejudice or failure of justice.

Analysis: The charge had clearly stated that the accused agreed with others to commit the murder of the deceased and also threatened extortion by telephone. The governing provisions on charges emphasise substance over form, and errors or omissions in the charge do not invalidate a conviction unless the accused was misled and a failure of justice resulted. The accused did not raise any objection at the trial or before the High Court, and the record did not show any prejudice. The ingredients of the offence were made known to him and he had a fair opportunity to defend himself.

Conclusion: The omission did not vitiate the conviction and the objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the evidence, including voice identification and surrounding circumstances, was sufficient to sustain the conviction for criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: Voice identification by a witness familiar with the caller can be relied upon when supported by other material. Here, the witness had prior acquaintance with the accused, there was evidence of threatening calls, call records showed repeated communication between the accused and the co-conspirator, and the prosecution evidence established the acts leading to the offence. Criminal conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence alone and may be inferred from conduct and surrounding circumstances. The concurrent findings of the courts below were not shown to be perverse.

Conclusion: The evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for criminal conspiracy.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was upheld on the basis that no prejudice arose from the charge and the prosecution proved the conspiracy through reliable voice identification and corroborative circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction is not vitiated by an error or omission in the charge unless it causes prejudice and failure of justice, and criminal conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence, including voice identification corroborated by surrounding facts.

---