LexPARANAGOUDA AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 15 S.C.R. 923 : 2023 INSC 933 923 CASE DETAILS PARANAGOUDA AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER (Criminal Appeal No. 3274 of 2023) OCTOBER 19, 2023 [S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the courts below were justifi ed in convicting and sentencing the accused for the off ences punishable u/ss. 498A, 304B read with s. 34 IPC and ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act; whether the conviction of the accused u/s. 304 B IPC would be sustainable; and whether accused can be convicted for the off ence punishable u/s. 306 IPC though not charged for said off ence. 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 off ences punishable u/ ss. 498A, 304B/34 and s. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced accordingly – Justifi cation: 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 924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 15 S.C.R. out, which resulted in her committing suicide would suffi ce to convict the accused for the off ence punishable u/s. 498A – It is this taunting or mental torture which she could not withstand and forced her to commit suicide by selfi mmolation – Thus, the accused persons are liable to be convicted for the off ence 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 modifi ed - Appellants are acquitted for the off ences punishable u/s. 304B and ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and convicted for the off ence punishable u/ss. 306 and 498A read with s. 34 and sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone with fi ne – Dowry Prohibition Act – ss. 3 and 4. [Paras 13, 17, 19, 21, 29, 30] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 215 – Eff ect of errors – Conviction of an accused for an off ence with which he may not have been specifi cally charged with – Permissibility – Accused having been tried for the off ences punishable u/ss. 498A, 304B IPC and ss. 3 and 4 of DP Act, if can be convicted for the off ence punishable u/s. 306 IPC though not charged for said off ence: Held: Omission to frame charge does not disable the court from convicting the accused for the off ence 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 off ence 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 off ence 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 specifi c charge would not be fatal as no injustice is being caused to the accused – Thus, the accused persons liable to be convicted for the off ence 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] 925 LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES Salim Gulab
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.