K. PREMA S. RAO AND ANR. versus YADLA SRINIVASA RAO AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 339 · Decided: 25-10-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

K. PREMA S. RAO AND ANR. 
v. 
Y ADLA SRINIV ASA RAO AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 25, 2002 
[M.B. SHAH, K.G. BALAKRJSHNAN AND 
D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
A 
B 
Sections 498A and 304B-Conviction under-Wife receiving land as C 
stridhana at the time of marriage-After few months husband forcing her to 
transfer the land in hi~ name-Wife refusing the same-Husband and in-laws 
driving her out of the house-Wife committing suicide-Husband and in-laws 
charged under section 498 A and 304 B-Trial Court convicting them for 
offence under section 498 A and acquitting them under section 304 B-High D 
Court upholding order of trial court with regard to husband and acquitting 
the in-laws-Justification of-Held: High Court justified in acquitting in-laws 
on appreciation of evidence and with regard to the husband trial Court and 
High Court justified on evide.nce to hold him guilty of cruelty under section 
498A-Since wife not subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with 
the dowry demand soon before her death, High Court justified in acquitting E 
husband under section 304 B. 
Section 306-Abetment to suicide-Conviction under Section 306 when 
charge not framed under that section-Justification of-Wife committing suicide 
on account of cruel conduct of husband-Courts below on this evidence holding F 
husband guilty under Section 498A-On appeal, held: Since such cruel 
treatment driving the wife to commit suicide, offence of abeting suicide under 
Section 306 /PC is made out read with Section I 13A of Evidence Act and 
mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the criminal court 
from convicting the accused for the offence which is found to have been 
proved on the evidence on record-Provisions of Section 221 Cr.P.C. can be G 
taken aid of in such a situation-Evidence Act 1872, Section 113A-Code of 
Criminal Procedure 1973, Section 221. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 215-Ejfect of errors-
When omission to frame charge under a section does not result in any failure 
339 
H 
340 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A of justice, there is no necessity to remit the matter to trial court for framing 
charge under that section. 
Accused No.I married one of the daughters of PWI. After few 
months of marriage accused No.I forced his wife to part with the land 
which she received as 'stridhana' at the time of marriage but she refused. 
B As a result, accused No.I who was Branch Post Master concealed the mail 
sent to his wife by her father and her sister. His wife discovered the letters 
and handed over to her father PWI. Accused No. I and his parents-accused 
Nos.2-3 then drove her out from the matrimonial house. On account of 
this extreme harassment she committed suicide. Accused were charged for 
C offence under Section 3048 and 498A IPC. Trial Court convicted accused 
for offences under Section 498A and acquitted them for offence under 
Section 3048 IPC. Appellants-parents of the deceased filed revision against 
the acquittal of accused under Section 3048 IPC. Accused filed appeal . 
challenging their conviction and sentences. High Court dismissed the 
revision and·allowed the appeal with regard to accused Nos.2-3 and upheld 
D the order of trial court with regard to Accused No. I. Hence the present 
cross appeals. 
E 
Accused contended that in the absence of a charge framed against , ./ 
the accused under Section 306 IPC, the accused cannot be convicted under/ 
the said Section. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. High Court appreciated the evidence led against accused 
Nos. 2-3 and found that the allegation against them of their participation 
with accused No.I in driving out the deceased from their house was for 
F the first time made by father of the deceased PWI only in his deposition 
in Court. At no earlier point of time such allegation w~s made against 
them. Apart from the oral testimony of PWI there is no other evidence 
on record to prove that accused Nos.2-3 joined accused No.I in harassing 
or cruelly treating the deceased. Thus the conclusion drawn by High Court 
G in favour of accused No.2-3 is reasonable and does not justify interference 
in their acquittal. Therefore, acquittal of accused No.2-3 is upheld. 
1344-H; 345-A-C) 
2. There is no evidence against accused No. I that at the time of 
marriage there was any demand or settlement for giving dowry in cash 
H or by way of transfer of property. There was no statement of PWI that 
K. PREMA S. RAO v. Y ADLA S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.