The Sixth Amendment guarantees defendant the right to be informed of the accusations and charges against him. The defendant cannot be tried or convicted of an offence that is substantially different from the crime mentioned in the formal charge. When the formal charge and the testimony tendered at the trial materially differ from each other, the conviction and the sentence are liable to be quashed on that ground alone.
Intimation in advance of the nature of criminal charge ahead of trial allows the defendant sufficient opportunity to prepare a defense to meet the accusation. Otherwise grave injustice would have been caused to the defendant who would have been taken by surprise and shock with no meaningful scope of defense. The Sixth Amendment requires that the criminal charge and the incriminating evidence led against the defendant at the trial should be in tandem with each other.
This removes the chances of any confusion as to the foundation of the judgment in a criminal proceeding. Thereby through specification and framing of the charge the possibility of the defendant being tried once again for the same offence, in violation of the doctrine of double jeopardy, is removed.
The court ignores insignificant or minor variations between the charge and the proof offered at the criminal trial as inconsequential.
