DALBIR SINGH versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 941 · Decided: 08-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

DALBIR SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
APRIL 8, 2004 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND 
G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
A 
B 
Section 464-Charge-Omission to frame-Effect of-Held: Appellate C 
or revisional court could convict an accused for an offence for which no 
charge was framed unless a failure of justice had in fact been occasioned-
ln order to determine whether a failure a/justice had in/act been occasioned, 
it is necessary to examine whether the accused was aware of the basic 
ingredients of the charge and the main facts sought to be establisheJ against D 
him. 
Penal Code, I 860: 
Section 306-Suicide-Abetment of-Omission to frame charge for-
Effect of-High Court found accused guilty of abetment of suicide by his E 
wife-But accused was not convicted as no charge was framed under S. 306-
Correctness of-Held: If the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the 
charge and the facts sought to be established against him conviction is possible 
even though no charge was framed under S. 306-Jn the circumstances of the 
case, accused convicted under S. 306. 
F 
The appellant-accused was charged under Section 302 of the Penal 
Code, 1860 for having committed the murder of his wife and his two 
daughters. He was also further charged under Section 3048 IPC for 
causing dowry. death of his wife and also under Section 498A IPC for 
subjecting her to cruelty. The trial court convicted the appellant-accused G 
under Section 302 IPC and Section 498A IPC but acquitted him of the 
charge under Section 3048 IPC. 
In appeal, the High Court held that the charge under Section 302 
IPC was not established but maintained the conviction under Section 498A 
941 
H 
942 
A IPC. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004) 3 S.C.R. 
The High Court was further of the opinion that the evidence on 
record clearly established the charge against the appellant-accused under 
Section 306 IPC for abetting the suicide of his wife and he could be 
convicted and sentenced for the said offence. However, in view of the fact 
B that no charge under Section 306 IPC had been framed and there was 
conflict of opinion in two decisions of this Court rendered by Benches of 
equal strength and as in such a situation a later decision was to be followed, 
the High Court came to a conclusion that the accused could not be 
convicted under Section 306 IPC. Hence the appeals. 
c 
D 
The following question arose before the Court:-
"Whether in a given case is it possible to convict the accused under 
Section 306 IPC if a charge for the said offence has not been framed 
against him?" 
Disposing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. In view of Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973, it is possible for the appellate or revisional Court to convict an 
accused for an offence for which no charge was framed unless the Court 
E is of the opinion that a failure of justice would in fact be occasioned. 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. (953-F-G( 
F 
G 
H 
Willie Slaney v. State of MP., AIR (1956) SC 116 and Gurbachan Singh 
v. State of Punjab, A IR (1957) SC 623, followed. 
Lakhjit Singh v. State of Punjab, [1994] Supp. l SCC 173, approved. 
Sangarabonia Sreenu v. State of A.P., (1997] 5 SCC 348, overruled. 
2. In view of the material on record, the conviction under Section 
306 of the Penal Code, 1860 against the appellant-accused can safely be 
recorded and the same would not result in failur.e of justice in any manner. 
(954-G( 
... ' 
DALBIR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. [G.P.MATHUR. J.) 
943 
1 ,, 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 479 A 
of 1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.3.98 of the Allahabad High 
Court in Crl. A. No. 803 of 1997. 
WITH 
Crl. A. No. 480 of 1999. 
Appellant-in-Person. 
B 
Pramod Swarup and J.K. Bhatia, for the Respondent in Crl. A. No. 479/ C 
99 & appellant in Crl. A. No. 480/99. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G.P. MATHUR, J. In view of conflict of opinion in two decisions of 
this Court rendered in Lakhjit Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, [1994] D 
Supp. I SCC 173 and Sangarabonia Sreenu v. State of A.P., [1997] 5 SCC 
348 these appeals have been directed to be placed for
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.