JUDGMENT KOTHARI, J. The accused in Sessions Case No. 197 of 2001 are applicants herein. The present revision application is filed challenging the order dated 13-2-2006 passed by learned Additional City Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.2, Ahmedabad, whereby the learned Judge was pleased to allow the application Exh. 97 which was submitted/moved by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to add charge under Sec. 34, I.P.C. 2. It appears from the record that the incident had occurred on 7-8-2001. In substance, it is the say of the injured lady that she was assaulted by three persons, viz. Mohmedyusuf Adambhai, Abdul Huk and Firoz Basirbhai. It is also the say of the injured lady that former two accused had iron pipes with them and the third one had a sword with him. 3. In said Sessions Case No. 197 of 2001, the accused were charged for the offences punishable under Secs. 307, 324, 325 & 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned order has observed that reliance placed by the learned Advocate for A/1 on the case of Bhil Mohanji Ranchhodji v. State of Gujarat, 1991 (2) GLR 786 is misplaced. The trial Court has observed that in the said case it is laid down that in absence of positive proof as to overact, Sec. 34 would not be applicable. The trial Court distinguishing the said case-law has observed that defence has set up the defence/case in evidence on the same line on which application in question is given, and therefore, there is positive evidence as to the applicability of Sec. 34 I.P.C. and holding so, the Court was pleased to allow the application. 5. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Aruna Shah for the applicants and learned A.P.P. Mr. K. L. Pandya for the State. 6. Learned Advocate Ms. Aruna Shah for the applicants submitted that the learned trial Court has committed serious error inasmuch as Sec. 34 was sought to be added after completion of recording of evidence and after recording of further statements of the accused. The learned Advocate also drew attention of the Court to the depositions of the injured lady and of the complainant. Aruna Shah for the applicants submitted that the learned trial Court has committed serious error inasmuch as Sec. 34 was sought to be added after completion of recording of evidence and after recording of further statements of the accused. The learned Advocate also drew attention of the Court to the depositions of the injured lady and of the complainant. It was also submitted that by addition of charge at this stage of the case, prejudice is likely to be caused to the accused and, therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have rejected the application. The learned Advocate has placed reliance on Sec. 216(3)(4) of Cr.P.C. 7. Learned A.P.P. Mr. Pandya has supported the order under challenge. 8. At the first instance, plea appears as too simple to deserve any serious attention. It is in the nature of formal and technical one. But then in many instances, cases that have reached upto Apex Court, a plea has been raised for acquittal on account of defective charge or omission to frame charge. In fact, in Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P., AIR 1956 SC 116 , this issue came up for consideration before five Judges Bench. The Constitution Bench was necessitated, as it was pointed out that there were inconsistencies, to some extent, in Nanakchand v. State of Punjab, AIR 1954 SC 204 and Suraj Pal v. State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 419 . In these two last referred cases, charges were framed under Secs. 302 & 149 of I.P.C. In Willie (William) Slaneys case, AIR 1956 SC 116 , charge was framed under Sec. 302 and Sec. 34 I.P.C. There were two accused in that case. Appeal of one of the accused came to be heard and disposed of and the said accused was acquitted. It was urged on behalf of the other accused that the case against him also be held in his favour because the case for offence under Sec. 34 I.P.C. fails, as now he is the sole accused in the case, and there being no charge for Sec. 302 I.P.C., simpliciter he may be acquitted. While considering this plea of the accused, the Court has made material observation as to the importance of the charge. While considering this plea of the accused, the Court has made material observation as to the importance of the charge. It has held as under : "Is the charge to be regarded as a ritualistic formula so sacred and fundamental that a total absence on one, or any departure in it from the strict and technical requirements of the Code, is so vital as to cut at the root of the trial and vitiate if from the start, or is it one of many regulations designed to ensure a fair and proper trial so that substantial, as opposed to purely technical, compliance with the spirit and requirements of the Code in this behalf is enough to cure departures from the strict letter of the law?" 8.1. The Court in that case has concluded that the accused can be said to have committed an offence punishable under Sec. 304, Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. 9. The learned Advocate for the applicants has objected and has opposed the order under challenge with all seriousness. It is not possible to agree with the submission of the learned Advocate for the applicants herein. Unlike charge under Sec. 149 of I.P.C., Sec. 34 of I.P.C. does not create any separate offence. In trial for criminal offence, when more than one persons are involved in the incident, then normally Sec. 34 would stand attracted. In the present case, it is the say of the prosecution that three persons had assaulted the lady. All the three persons are identified by names and weapons they had alleged to be with them at the time of commission of the offence. All these three persons are referred by name by the injured lady in her evidence. This material, in my opinion, is sufficient to attract Sec. 34 of I.P.C. for the purpose of framing of charge. The submission of the learned Advocate for the applicants that there is no allegation or evidence as to the conspiracy between the accused and further submission that the injured lady had no occasion to see at least one of the accused, as the said assailant had given blow from behind, has hardly any importance or relevance. In order to attract Sec. 34, prior conspiracy between the assailants is not necessary to allege or establish Hari Om v. State of U.P. 1993 (1) Crimes 294 (SC). In order to attract Sec. 34, prior conspiracy between the assailants is not necessary to allege or establish Hari Om v. State of U.P. 1993 (1) Crimes 294 (SC). It may be stated that criminal conspiracy itself is distinct offence under I.P.C. Section 34 of I.P.C. may be attracted even in absence of any conspiracy. Conspiracy has no relation with Sec. 34 much less dependence on it. In short, the undisputed fact that charge is framed against three accused persons and allegation of committing assault is against three accused persons, prima facie attracts Sec. 34. The submission of the learned Advocate Ms. Shah that there is no evidence against all or any of the accused, may help the accused in regular trial; in other words, in contesting the case on merits. 10. The submission that prejudice is likely to cause to the accused has also no substance, for the simple reason that Sec. 34 itself does not create any offence. Further, width of Sec. 464 (Effect of omission, error or absence of charge) is such that, if prosecution successfully brings home case against the accused during the course of evidence, then absence, mistake or charge being unspecific, would hardly be of any consequence in holding the accused to be guilty, except in very exceptional circumstances of the case. Reliance placed on Sec. 216(3)(4) Cr.P.C is misplaced. On the contrary, Sec. 216(3) enables the Court to add and alter charge. Section 216(4) takes care of prejudice that may likely to cause to either side. In the present case, there is no question of prejudice likely to cause to anyone, particularly to the applicants/accused. It may be stated that the learned trial Judge has observed that defence has set up the case bearing in mind the reasons' given in the application in question (Exh. 97) which was moved by the State. It was not pointed out at the time of hearing that how this finding is erroneous, nor it was pointed out that how the accused are going to be prejudiced merely by adding charge for an offence under Sec. 34, I.P.C. General submission that framing of charge would cause prejudice to the accused is not sufficient. 11. How prejudice is to be shown? 11. How prejudice is to be shown? Much depends on facts of the case, however, following principles laid down in Main Pal v. State of Haryana, AIR 2010 SC 3292 for framing and appreciating charge, does provide enough material and clue for the defence to develop his case qua charge and it also provides clear answer to G.P./A.P.P. for defending such a plea. The principles enunciated are : (i) The object of framing a charge is to enable an accused to have a clear idea of what he is being tried for and of the essential facts that he had to meet. The charge must also contain the particulars of date, time, place and person against whom the offence was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. (ii) The accused is entitled to know with certainty and accuracy, the exact nature of the charge against him, and unless he has such knowledge, his defence will be prejudiced. Where an accused is charged with having committed offence against one person but on the evidence led, he is convicted for committing offence against another person, without a charge being framed in respect of it, the accused will be prejudiced, resulting in a failure of justice. But there will be no prejudice or failure of justice where there was an error in the charge and the accused was aware of the error. Such knowledge can be inferred from the defence, that is, if the defence of the accused showed that he was defending himself against the real and actual charge and not the erroneous charge. (iii) In judging a question of prejudice, as of guilt, the Courts must act with a broad vision and look to the substance and not to the technicalities, and their main concern should be to see whether the accused had a fair trial, whether he knew what he was being tried for, whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him fairly and clearly, and whether he was given a full and fair chance to defend himself; Main Pal v. State of Haryana, 2010 (10) SCC 130 : AIR 2010 SC 3292 : 2010 AIR SCW 5293. 12. In the end, reference may be made to Gurpreet Singh's case, [ 2005 (12) SCC 615 ]. 12. In the end, reference may be made to Gurpreet Singh's case, [ 2005 (12) SCC 615 ]. Interestingly, in that case, as in the present case there were three accused. In fact, there were four accused in that case, one had died during the pendency of appeal. In that case, charge was framed only under Sec. 302 I.P.C. and not under Sec. 34. A submission was advanced that omission to frame specific charge vitiates the case of prosecution. Relying on Ramji Singh's case, [ 2001 (9) SCC 528 ], the Court had rejected the plea and the appeal of the accused was dismissed. 13. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the revision. The same fails and stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. The trial Court is directed to dispose of Sessions Case No. 197 of 2001 as expeditiously as possible. (NRP) Application dismissed.