Willie (William) Slaney v State of Madhya Pradesh

• The appellant was charged under S.302 read with S.34 IPC. He was convicted under S.302 alone, though no separate charge under S.302 had been framed against him, and he argued that the conviction was illegal for want of that charge. The question was referred to a Constitution Bench.

1. Whether the omission to frame a charge under S.302 IPC, where the accused was charged under S.302 read with S.34, vitiates a conviction under S.302.

• The omission was not an illegality that vitiated the trial but a curable irregularity, because it had caused no prejudice to the appellant. The Code does not use the word "illegality"; it can only mean an incurable irregularity, incurable because of prejudice leading to a failure of justice. Whether there is prejudice is a question of fact in each case. On the facts the offence was found to fall under the second part of S.304 IPC.

In judging prejudice, as in judging guilt, courts must look to the substance and not to technicalities. Their concern is whether the accused had a fair trial, whether he knew what he was being tried for, whether the main facts against him were explained fairly and clearly, and whether he had a full and fair chance to defend himself. If the defect is so grave that prejudice must be implied, it is an illegality; otherwise prejudice must be shown.