William Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1956 SC 116)

The Court said the Code aims to do justice, not reward technicalities. If the accused suffers no real prejudice, small errors or even absence of a separate alternative charge will not upset a fair trial. On facts, the focus was on intention—whether it was murder (s.302) or culpable homicide not amounting to murder (s.304 Part II).

• Substance over form: look for prejudice, not minor defects.
• Sections 34/114/149 IPC allow “rolled-up” charges for common intention/object.
• If evidence proves murder simpliciter, conviction can stand even without an alternative charge—unless prejudice shown.

1. Is this a case under Section 302 or the second part of Section 304 IPC?
2. Does omission to frame an alternative charge (e.g., 302 simpliciter) vitiate the trial?
3. When do errors in the charge become fatal to the prosecution?

• Justice first, not technical traps: Substantial compliance is enough; inconsequential errors do not vitiate trials.
• Prejudice test: An error/omission matters only if the accused shows real prejudice in defence or cross-examination.
• Rolled-up charges: Sections 34, 114 & 149 IPC cover direct and constructive liability; absence of one head is not per se fatal.

Held: Sections 34/114/149 IPC present different angles of common intention/object. A “rolled-up” charge can sustain conviction for the substantive offence if facts justify it and the defence had a fair chance. No error or even total absence of a separate charge automatically nullifies the trial. The deciding test is prejudice. If the part played by the accused is clear and supports murder simpliciter, conviction stands unless prejudice is proved. The Court cautioned against relying only on injury seriousness; the intention element must be assessed.

Prejudice, not pedantry. Trial errors in the charge are curable unless they cause real prejudice. For 302 vs 304 Part II, courts must look for intention to cause that particular injury, not just the injury’s gravity.

• Protects fair trials from being derailed by minor drafting mistakes.
• Clarifies use of common intention/object provisions for liability.
• Refines approach to murder vs culpable homicide—keep intention at the center.

1. Charge defects are curable unless prejudice is shown.
2. Rolled-up charge can support conviction for the substantive offence.
3. Intention decides 302 vs 304 Part II, not injury gravity alone.
4. Fair opportunity to defend = trial stands despite minor errors.

Mnemonic — “P-R-I-ME” (Prejudice • Rolled-up charge • Intention • Murder vs 304 • Errors curable)

1. Prejudice: Show it or the error won’t matter.
2. Rolled-up: 34/114/149 can cover liability angles.
3. Intention: If intention to cause the injury is proved → 302.

Prejudice (Trial)

Real disadvantage caused to the defence due to an error or omission in charge or procedure.

Rolled-up Charge

A charge that covers direct and constructive liability under provisions like 34/114/149 IPC.

Murder vs 304 Part II

Difference often turns on intention to cause that particular injury likely to cause death.