https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444496 An appellate court may alter a charge, but where the new basis of conviction is likely to prejudice the accused, prior notice and an opportunity to respond are required; in this matter, the murder conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 was unsustainable because no such notice was given. Liability under Section 34 also failed on the evidence, as there was no proof of a prior meeting of minds or sufficient participation to establish common intention. The conviction under Section 201 was maintained because eyewitness evidence showed the appellant helped dispose of the body and thereby caused disappearance of evidence. en-us Mon, 09 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Oct 2023 05:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444496 An appellate court may alter a charge, but where the new basis of conviction is likely to prejudice the accused, prior notice and an opportunity to respond are required; in this matter, the murder conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 was unsustainable because no such notice was given. Liability under Section 34 also failed on the evidence, as there was no proof of a prior meeting of minds or sufficient participation to establish common intention. The conviction under Section 201 was maintained because eyewitness evidence showed the appellant helped dispose of the body and thereby caused disappearance of evidence. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 09 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444496