LexDINESH SETH versus STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. I ) - ~ [2008] 12 S.C.R. 113 ·DINESH SETH V. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI (Criminal Appeal No. 1239 of 2003) AUGUST 18, 2008 . ... ... , [ALTAMAS KABIR AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ] .. . ·. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: A ·B ss. 221,222 and 464 - Conviction of accused for an of- fence not specifically charged with -. HELD: In certain situa- C tions accused can be convicted of an offence,.with which he may not have. been specifically charged - In the in,stant case, by virtue of trial of accuse·d for offence uls 304-8 !PC, omis- sion of trial' court to frame specific charge u/s 498-A did not prejudice the cause of the accused nor did it result in failure D of-justice -·Accused was not only aware of the charge of "cru- elty"i but he also got and availed the opportunity to defend himself with reference to that charge - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 304-8 and 498-A. .. .Penal Code, 1860: ss. 304-8 and 498-A - Accused charged and convicted by trial court of offence punishable u/s 304-8 /PC, but High Court convicting him u/s 498-A - HELD: Ingredient of cruelty E is common to s. 304-8 and 498-A - s. 498-A has a wider spec- F trum - High Court did not commit any error in convicting the appellant u/s 498-A ..:.. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 221, 222 and 464. . Accused-appellant's wife was stated to have died un- natural death in her matrimonial home within two years . G of her. marriage. There were allegations of harassment and torture against the appellant and his family members. The trial court framed charge u/s 304-B r/w s.34 f PC against the appellant, his two brothers and mother; and convicted - 113 H ,. 114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R. ( A all of them of the charge. The High Court acquitted all the accused of the charge u/s 304-8, but convicted the ap- pellant u/s 498-A IPC. In the instant appeal the questions for consideration B before the Court were: (i) whether omission to frame a ·charge or any error or irregularity in the charge is, by it- ,_ l self, sufficient for quashing the conviction of the ac- cused? and (ii) whether while acquitting the appellant of _ the charge under s.304-B IPC, the High Court could con- vict him under s.498-A IPC. c Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 In view of the provisions of ss. 221, 222 and 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in cer- tain situations an accused can be convicted of an offence D with which he may not have been specifically charged -.,, and that an error, omission or irregularity in the framing of charge is, by itself' not sufficient for upsetting the con- > viction. The appellate, confirming or revisional Court can interfere in such matters only if it is shown that error, E omission or irregularity in the framing of charge has caused prejudice to the accused and failure of justice has been occasioned. [para 14] [128,A-C] Willie (William) Slaney vs. State of M.P. AIR 1956 SC F 116; GurfJachan Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 623; Lakhjit Singh vs. State of Punjab 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 173; Sangaraboina Sreenu vs. State of A.P. 1997 (5) SCC 348; Oalbir Singh vs. State of UP. 2004 (5) sec 334 - relied on. 1.2 In the instant case, the specific allegation levelled G against the accused before the trial court was that they -\ had subjected the deceased to cruelty for or in connec- tion with demand for dowry and she had died unnatural death within seven years of her marriage. Thus, the ap- pellant was not only aware of the charge of cruelty but he H got and availed the opportunity to defend himself with ; .. :.:;:.;· --.... DINESH SETH v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI 115 ) reference to that charge. Therefore, it cannot be said that A omission of the trial court to frame specific charge under Section 498A IPC had prejudiced the cause of the appel- lant or that failure of justice had been occasioned on that count. [para 15] .£128,C-D; E-F]_ T 2.1 The ingredient of cruelty is common to Sections B 3048 and 498A IPC, but the width and scope of two sec- tions is different, inasmuch as Section 3048 deals with cases of death as a result of cruelty or harassment within seven years of marriage whereas Section 498A has a wider spectrum and it covers all cases in which the wife is sub- c jected to cruelty by her husband or relative of the hus- band which may result in death by way of suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether men- . tal or
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.