Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 498A, 304B rw s. 34, 306 – Cruelty against married women – Abetment of suicide - Accused-husband and in-laws subjected the deceased-wife to such cruelty and harassment for dowry demand as to drive her to commit suicide by self-immolation – Recording of the dying declaration of the wife and thereafter she succumbed to her burn injuries – Conviction of the accused for the offences punishable u/ss. 498A, 304B/34 and s. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced accordingly – Justification:
Held: Perusal of the dying declaration clearly suggests the same to be genuine, true and the maker has stated the true story – Dying declaration does not suggest that there was any proximate nexus to the act of committing suicide on account of preceding dowry demand or the demand of dowry on any particular date having triggered the deceased to commit the suicide or forced her to self immolate – Proximate link not being available, the conviction of the accused u/s 304B was improper and cannot be sustained and is set aside – In the light of dying declaration having been accepted to have been made by the deceased and the contents of the same disclosing that she was mentally traumatized, unable to withstand the torture meted out, which resulted in her committing suicide would suffice to convict the accused for the offence punishable u/s. 498A – It is this taunting or mental torture which she could not withstand and forced her to commit suicide by selfimmolation – Thus, the accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 306 though charge was not framed – As regards, aged accused-in laws, in view of the period of sentence already undergone, and not having any past history of criminal record, a lenient view is taken while imposing the sentence – Judgment and order of conviction passed by the courts below is modified - Appellants are acquitted for the offences punishable u/s. 304B and ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and convicted for the offence punishable u/ss. 306 and 498A read with s.
34 and sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone with fine – Dowry Prohibition Act – ss. 3 and 4. [Paras 13, 17, 19, 21, 29, 30] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 215 – Effect of errors – Conviction of an accused for an offence with which he may not have been specifically charged with – Permissibility – Accused having been tried for the offences punishable u/ss. 498A, 304B IPC and ss. 3 and 4 of DP Act, if can be convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 306 IPC though not charged for said offence:
Held: Omission to frame charge does not disable the court from convicting the accused for the offence which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record – On facts, from the statement of charge framed u/s. 304B and in the alternative s. 306, it is clear that all the facts and ingredients for framing the charge for offence u/s. 306 existed – Mere omission on the part of the trial judge to mention s. 306 IPC with 498A would not preclude this Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved – In the charge framed u/s. 304B, it is clearly mentioned that dying declaration of the deceased indicates that deceased was mentally traumatized and she was unable to tolerate the torture and harassment meted out by the accused person on account of which she committed suicide by self immolation and as such non-framing of the specific charge would not be fatal as no injustice is being caused to the accused – Thus, the accused persons liable to be convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 306 though charge was not framed – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 304B, 306 – Dowry Prohibition Act – ss. 3 and 4. [Paras 27, 29]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Salim Gulab Pathan v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 6 SCC 606; Atbir v. Government (2010) 9 SCC 1; Kamlavva and Anr v. State of Karnataka (2009) 13 SCC 614; Bansilal v. State of Haryana (2011) 11 SCC 359; Sher Singh Alias Partapa v. State of Haryana (2015) 1 SCR 29; Dinesh Seth v. State of NCT of Delhi (2008) 14 SCC 94; Dalbir Singh v. State of U.P. (2004) 5 SCC 334; K. Prema S. Rao & Anr v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao and Others (2003) 1 SCC 217 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.