Supreme Court of India· 10 September 2026

Can an Appellate Court convict for an offence for which no charge was framed, without a failure of justice?

PYNCHEMALANGAKI BAREH v. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

2026 INSC 984 · CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4337 OF 2026
Coram: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra · Justice N.V. Anjaria

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.94 Juvenile Justice (Care and …📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

An Appellate Court can convict an accused for an offence for which no charge was framed unless a failure of justice would occasion.

Yes. In view of Section 464 of the Cr.PC, an Appellate Court can convict an accused for an offence for which no charge was framed unless a failure of justice would in fact occasion. That is judged by whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence, whether the main facts were explained to him clearly, and whether he got a fair chance to defend himself.

Headnote

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — s.94 — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — ss.3, 4 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.376 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.464 — Age Of Victim — Baptismal Certificate — Omission To Frame Charge — Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — s.94 — Baptismal Certificate Not Prescribed Document — Held: Where the age of a victim under the POCSO Act is in dispute, courts have to take recourse to Section 94 of the JJ Act. A Baptismal Certificate is not a document prescribed there, even if the mother's deposition corroborates it. (¶36, 38) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.464 — Omission To Frame Charge Under s.376 IPC — Failure Of Justice — Held further: An omission to frame a charge under Section 376 IPC does not bar conviction where the accused knew the ingredients, had the main facts explained and a fair chance to defend, and no failure of justice was occasioned. (¶44, 54) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.376 — POCSO Act, 2012 — s.4 — Minority Not Proved — Conviction Altered — Held further: Where minority is not proved but rape is established, the charge under Section 4 of the POCSO Act fails and Section 376 IPC sustains. The Appellate Court may alter the finding and sentence. Appeal partly allowed. (¶44, 45, 58)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 53In a case involving trial of an accused under Sections 302, 498-A and 304- B of the IPC, while answering issue with respect to conviction of accused under Section 306 of the IPC in the absence of charge framed under it, this Court in Dalbir Singh v. State of U.P.[^30] held that having regard to Section 464 of the Cr.PC, Appellate Court or Revisional Court has the power to convict the accused. It was held that conviction is possible if, (i) the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of that offence, (ii) the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him clearly, and (iii) he got a fair chance to defend himself.

Paragraph 54There is a catena of decisions of this Court on the same lines and it is not necessary to burden this judgment making reference to each one of them. Therefore, in view of Section 464 of the Cr.PC, it is possible for the Appellate Court or Revisional Court to convict an accused for an offence for which no charge was framed unless the Court is of the opinion that a failure of justice would in fact occasion. In order to judge whether a failure of justice has been occasioned, it will be relevant to examine whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which he is being convicted and whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him clearly and whether he got a fair chance to defend himself.

Acts & Sections

s.94 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015s.3 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012s.4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012s.376 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.506 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.464 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.222 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.386 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of PYNCHEMALANGAKI BAREH v. STATE OF MEGHALAYA — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Can a Baptismal Certificate prove a POCSO victim's age under Section 94 of the JJ Act?Can an accused charged under Section 3 of the POCSO Act be convicted under Section 376 IPC where minority is not proved?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections