JUDGMENT Jasbir Singh, J. - This appeal was received through jail. At the time of hearing, Shri Kuldip Tiwari, Advocate was requested to assist this court as an amicus curiae. 2. Appellant has filed this appeal against judgment and order dated 14.2.1994, vide which he was convicted for commission of an offence under Section 304 Part-II Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years. Since the petitioner was already undergoing sentence, it was ordered that sentence passed in this case shall run separately from the one which he was already undergoing. 3. As per prosecution story, appellant Balwan Singh was a convict in a case of murder and was undergoing imprisonment for life in District Jail Rohtak. Similarly, Om Parkash (deceased) was also a convict and was undergoing imprisonment for life in that jail. On 4.10.1992 at about 3.00 P.M. the prisoners were allowed to go to the pond in jail premises for taking bath and for washing clothes. Balwan Singh and Om Parkash (deceased) took up a quarrel at that pond. Appellant Balwan Singh, by lifting a brick-bat, caused injuries to the deceased. Occurrence was witnessed by Rajinder Singh and Gajraj, two wardens of the jail and also one Sarwan Kumar, an undertrial. After causing injuries, appellant ran away from the spot. On alarm being raised, he was over-powered and was sent to his barrack. Injured Om Parkash was admitted in the jail hospital. Doctor was on leave. Keeping in view his condition, he was referred to Medical College and Hospital at Rohtak. He was admitted in that hospital. However, on the next day, he succumbed to his injuries. On receipt of intimation from Superintendent Jail (Ex. PD), a daily diary report was incorporated by the police officials. Statement of the injured could not be recorded as he was not fit to make his statement. 4. On receipt of intimation regarding death of Om Parkash, FIR dated 5.10.1992 was recorded for commission of an offence under Section 303 Indian Penal Code. Necessary post mortem of the dead body was conducted and on completion of investigation, final report was put up before the competent court for trial. Appellant/accused was charge-sheeted for commission of an offence punishable under Section 303 Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Necessary post mortem of the dead body was conducted and on completion of investigation, final report was put up before the competent court for trial. Appellant/accused was charge-sheeted for commission of an offence punishable under Section 303 Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, prosecution witnesses namely PW Rajinder Singh and PW Gajraj both jail wardens, who were posted in District Jail Rohtak at the relevant time, resiled from their statements and failed to support the prosecution version. However, PW5 Sarwan Kumar, an undertrial, had supported version of the prosecution. 5. On completion of prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant/accused was recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, wherein he admitted that he was undergoing life imprisonment as a convict. He had further admitted that Om Parkash (deceased) was also undergoing imprisonment for life in some other case in the jail. However, he denied all allegations appearing against him in prosecution evidence. He led no evidence in defence. Trial Court on appraisal of evidence, found him guilty, convicted and sentenced him, as found mentioned in para 2 of this order. 6. Shri Tiwari appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that Section 303 Indian Penal Code was struck down by the Honble Supreme Court, being un-constitutional, in Mithu v. State of Punjab, 1983 Crl. L.J. 811. By referring to this fact, counsel prays that very framing of charge against appellant/accused for commission of an offence under Section 303 Indian Penal Code was wrong, as such, it vitiates the entire trial and the appellant is entitled to acquittal. 7. He has further stated that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the appellant/accused for commission of an offence with which he was charged. Shri Tiwari, further by referring to the statements of the prosecution witnesses and medical evidence, argued that there existed vital discrepancies so far as ocular version and medical evidence is concerned, which clearly shows that prosecution had failed to prove its case. It was further argued that in view of provisions of Section 427 sub-section (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, trial Court was not justified in ordering that the sentence of the appellant/accused shall runs separately than the one, which he was already undergoing at the time of alleged occurrence. It was further argued that in view of provisions of Section 427 sub-section (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, trial Court was not justified in ordering that the sentence of the appellant/accused shall runs separately than the one, which he was already undergoing at the time of alleged occurrence. He, by referring to the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, namely Rajinder and Gajraj, jail wardens, argued that both these witnesses had failed to support the prosecution version. He prayed that appeal be accepted and the judgment under challenge be set aside. In the alternative, he prayed that appellant had already suffered a lot, occurrence had taken place at the spur of moment, as such, leniency be shown to the appellant/accused and his sentence be reduced. 8. Arguments raised by counsel for the appellant have vehemently been opposed by Shri Bijender Dhankhar, A.A.G., Haryana. He, by referring to the provisions of Sections 215 and 464 of Criminal Procedure Code, argued that framing of charge for commission of an offence under Section 303 Indian Penal Code was only an irregularity during trial. Appellant/accused remained aware that he was facing prosecution for committing murder of Om Parkash, as such, no prejudice had been caused to him. He argued that the conviction for commission of an offence under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code was justified. No such objection regarding wrong framing of charge was raised at the relevant time before the trial Court. Shri Dhankhar further argued that the trial Court had rightly ordered that sentence in this case shall run separately than the one already awarded to the appellant/accused as he had committed a very heinous crime. He also stated that the discrepancies in the ocular version and medical evidence are not very significant in nature and no benefit can be extended to the appellant/accused in that regard. 9. Counsel for the parties heard. First argument of Shri Tiwari that since charge was framed for commission of an offence under Section 303 Indian Penal Code, which section had already been struck off being violative of provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India by the Supreme Court in Mithus case (supra), conviction and sentence was not justified, is devoid of any force. First argument of Shri Tiwari that since charge was framed for commission of an offence under Section 303 Indian Penal Code, which section had already been struck off being violative of provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India by the Supreme Court in Mithus case (supra), conviction and sentence was not justified, is devoid of any force. Record shows that on 18.11.1993, following charge was framed against the appellant/accused by the trial Court :- "That on 4.10.1992, in the area of police station Civil Lines, Rohtak, within the premises of District Jail, Rohtak, you Balwan, a life convict, while undergoing that sentence, caused injuries to Om Parkash, a life convict, with intent to commit his murder, which injury resulted into his death on 5.10.1992 and thus you did commit his murder by intentionally causing his death and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 303, Indian Penal Code, and within the cognizance of this Court. And I do hereby direct that you be tried by this Court on the above said charge sheet." 10. It is apparent from order, as referred to above, that he was charged of having caused injuries to Om Parkash with an intention to commit murder, those injuries ultimately resulted into his death on 5.10.1992, as such, he had committed murder intentionally leading to death of Om Parkash. It has further been stated that by doing so, he had committed an offence under Section 303 Indian Penal Code. Facts mentioned above, clearly indicate that the appellant/accused was being tried for commission of murder of Om Parkash. Counsel for the appellant has failed to show anything from the record, which may indicate that appellant/accused was ever misled or any prejudice was caused to him by framing of charge under Section 303 Indian Penal Code. It is true that Section 303 Indian Penal Code had already been struck down by Honble Supreme Court in Mithus case (supra) being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, no objection was raised by appellant/accused at any time against framing of charge, as mentioned above, as such, he is not entitled to get any benefit at this stage. Cross-examination of all prosecution witnesses clearly indicates that appellant/accused was aware as to regarding what offence he was being tried by the Court. Order of charge clearly indicates time, manner of causing injuries and other details. Cross-examination of all prosecution witnesses clearly indicates that appellant/accused was aware as to regarding what offence he was being tried by the Court. Order of charge clearly indicates time, manner of causing injuries and other details. In view of provisions of Sections 215 and 464 of Criminal Procedure Code, it can at the maximum be an error which had not vitiated the trial. Provisions of these sections read as under :- "215. Effect of errors. - No error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence or those particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice." "464. Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in charge. - (1) No finding sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charge, unless, in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. (2) If the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision is of opinion that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned, it may - (a) In the case of an omission to frame a charge, order that a charge be framed and that the trial be recommended (recommenced ?) from the point immediately after the framing of the charge. (b) in the case of an error, omission or irregularity in the charge, direct a new trial to be had upon a charge framed in whatever manner it thinks fit : Provided that if the Court is of opinion that the facts of the case are such that no valid charge could be preferred against the accused in respect of the facts proved, it shall quash the conviction." 11. Records clearly show that error of framing charge has not resulted into failure of justice and no prejudice was caused to appellant/accused, he was alive to the situation and knew that he was being tried for committing murder of Om Parkash. 12. In view of reasoning given above, this contention is rejected. 13. Records clearly show that error of framing charge has not resulted into failure of justice and no prejudice was caused to appellant/accused, he was alive to the situation and knew that he was being tried for committing murder of Om Parkash. 12. In view of reasoning given above, this contention is rejected. 13. Next contention of Shri Tiwari that virtually there existed no evidence against appellant/accused, is also liable to be rejected. No doubt, PW-1 and PW-2 (both Jail Wardens) had failed to support the prosecution version and they were declared hostile. But there existed independent corroboration to the incident in the statement of PW-5, an under-trial. This witness had categorically stated that in his presence, injuries were caused to the deceased Om Prakash by appellant/accused with a brick-bat. At the time of post mortem examination, as many as 9 injuries were found on the person of the deceased. Cross-examination of PW-5 had failed to shatter trustworthiness of his testimony. As such, this Court feels that conviction was justified. 14. Next contention of Shri Tiwari that the Court below had wrongly ordered that the sentence awarded in this case shall run separately than the one appellant was already undergoing, has a substance. To support his contention, he has referred to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 427 of Criminal Procedure Code, which reads as under :- "(2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence." 15. It is an admitted fact in this case that appellant/accused was undergoing life imprisonment in another case. In this case, he was convicted for commission of an offence under Section 304 Part-II Indian Penal Code and was ordered to undergo RI for 7 years i.e. for a specific term, as such, in view of provisions of Section 427(2) Indian Penal Code of Criminal Procedure Code, trial Court was not justified in ordering that subsequent sentence shall run separately. 16. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and another, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 2296, while interpreting provisions of Section 427 of Criminal Procedure Code had opined that such a view as has been adopted by the trial Court in this case was not justified. 17. 16. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and another, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 2296, while interpreting provisions of Section 427 of Criminal Procedure Code had opined that such a view as has been adopted by the trial Court in this case was not justified. 17. In view of the ratio of the judgment of Supreme Court, referred to above, last portion of the judgment passed by the trial Court, vide which it was ordered that the sentence awarded in this case shall run separately, is not sustainable and is accordingly modified and it is ordered that the sentence awarded in this case shall run concurrently with the sentence of life imprisonment which appellant/accused was already undergoing. 18. Before parting with this judgment, this Court places on record appreciation for efforts made by young Advocate Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari in assisting this Court at the time of arguments that too, as an amicus curiae. With above mentioned modification, appeal fails and is dismissed as such. Appeal dismissed.