Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. On the other hand, a heavy reliance was placed upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in Dalbir Singh v. State of U.P. 2004 (Cri) 503 to contend that if the Court has sufficient power to convict the accused under Section 306 of IPC in a case where the accused was charged and tried only of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC, there should not be any difficulty in framing an alternative charge under Section 306 in a case of bride burning or where the allegations attracting an offence under Section 498-A of IPC are sufficient to drive a person to commit suicide.

7. It is thus clear that in a case where the accused are charged of the offence under Section 498-A and Section 302 there should be no difficulty for the Court to convict the accused if the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of IPC are established by the prosecution even without framing a charge under that section. What is material and relevant, is that the prosecution should establish that the accused had enough notice of the allegations which could form the basis for conviction under Section 306 of IPC. In a bride burning case there could be or could not be any eye-witness and if there is no direct evidence the Court would have to base the order of conviction either under Section 302 or under Section 306 of IPC on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Motive for committing murder and basic ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of IPC in such cases could be one and the same. In both the cases the accused would make every effort to disprove the case of the prosecution under Section 498A, namely, that neither any demand of dowry was made nor any gifts or presents or money was received by the accused at a subsequent stage or that he subjected the deceased to cruelty for the same or for any other reason. In other words, the accused would try to disprove the motive if a charge is under Section 302 and/or to establish that the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 do not exist. The motive for conviction either under Section 302 or the basic ingredients to establish charge under Section 306 of IPC in a case of bride burning would be common and, therefore, the conviction under Section 306 of IPC can safely be recorded and same would not result in failure of justice in any manner even if the charge under Section 306 was not framed and the accused was tried only under Section 302 r/w 498-A of IPC.

8. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 306 in a bride burning case are hidden in the charge under Section 498-A of IPC. If the intensity of illtreatment is found to be sufficient to drive or abet a person to commit suicide, it would constitute an offence under Section 306 of IPC. However, severity of cruelty will have to be seen and judged from the facts of each case. In other words, if wife is subjected to cruelty to such an extent, which could drive her to commit suicide and if that is established and then even if offence under Section 302 is not proved, there could be a conviction under Section 306 of IPC. This being so, I find absolutely no reason and ground as to why the trial Court cannot frame alternative charge under Section 306 of IPC in a case of bride burning particularly where the accused are charged under Section 498-A also. As a matter of fact, if the facts and circumstances demand, the trial Court should frame alternative charge under Section 306 also so as to keep the accused on guard and make him aware that there could be a conviction under Section 306 even if a charge under Section 302 of IPC is not established.

9. The Judgment of Delhi High Court in Jatindra Kumar's case, I am afraid, will not apply in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Dalvir Singh's case where sections 222 and 464 of Cr.P.C were also taken into consideration to hold that even if the accused are not charged under Section 306, in a case of bride burning, the Court can convict the accused under that provision. Both these provisions were not referred to and considered in Jatindra Kumar's case.

10. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 701 of 2006, the accused were charged of the offence punishable under sections 302, 498-A read with 34 of IPC on the basis of the complaint lodged by Balu Namdeo Gavande, father of deceased Ranjana. Petitioner No. 2 was her husband whereas petitioner No. 1 was her father-in-law and other petitioners are also members of the same family. The marriage of the deceased and petitioner No. 2 Nandu was solemnised some time in 2001 and the alleged incident occurred 2.1/2 years thereafter on 26.1.2004. The dead body of Ranjana was found in a well. The cause of death, according to autopsy report, was asphyxia due to drowning. The allegation against the accused, as reflected in the FIR, was that deceased Ranjana was subjected to cruelty by the accused to coerce her to fulfil their demand of Rs. 10000 for lying pipe line in the agricultural land. It has been specifically stated in the FIR that she was, at times, assaulted by the accused and, there was constant taunting and demand of the amount from her parents. Prima facie, the ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A do exist in the FIR, therefore, and the charge has been framed by the trial Court under Section 498-A read with 34 of IPC. There is no direct evidence so as to reach a conclusion that the accused committed an offence under Section 302. It could be homicidal death or suicidal death and, therefore, I find absolutely no infirmity and error in the order by which an alternative charge of the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of IPC is framed. No prejudice whatsoever will be caused to the accused if an alternative charge under Section 306 is also framed, keeping in view the allegations against the accused. The accused, in fact, would be on guard while facing trial to meet both the charges of which the motive and basic ingredients would be one and the same. The ill-treatment and the charge under Section 498-A on the basis thereof would provide motive for committing murder and if that is not established, the charge under Section 498-A may satisfy the basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of IPC particularly because the case is based on circumstantial evidence. In the circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and hence the writ petition is dismissed.