SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 732

1997(4) Supreme 214
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.K. Mukherjee and S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
Sangaraboina Sreenu -Appellant
versus
State of Andhra Pradesh -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 1990
Decided on 23-4-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : A. Subba Rao, Advocate.
For the Respondent : G. Prabhakar, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Section 306 IPC cannot be said to be a minor offence in relation to an offence u/s 302 IPC within the meaning of Section 222 Cr.P.C. for the two offences are of distinct and different categories.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 222-Trial for uxoricide-Trial Court convicted appellant u/s 302 IPC-Appeal-Conviction u/s 302 set aside-High Court convicted appellant u/s 306 IPC-Whether conviction u/s 306 IPC sustainable?-(No)-Two offences are of distinct and different categories-Section 306 IPC not a minor offence in relation to an offence u/s 302 IPC within the meaning of Section 222 Cr.P.C.

       Held that having acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 302 IPC - which was the only charge framed against him - the High Court could not have convicted him of the offence under Section 306 IPC. It is true that Section 222 Cr.P.C. entitles a Court to convict a person of an offence which is minor in comparison to the one for which he is trial but Section 306 IPC cannot be said to be a minor offence in relation to an offence under Section 302 IPC within the meaning of Section 222 Cr.P.C. for the two offences are of distinct and different categories. While the basic constituent of an offence under Section 302 IPC is homicidal death those of Section 306 IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. (Para 2)

       

ORDER

The appellant was put up for trial before the Sessions Judge, Warangal for uxoricide. The accusation against him was that on May 15, 1987 at or about 9.30 p.m. he poured kerosene oil on the body of his wife and set her on fire. The trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC but in the appeal preferred by him the High Court set aside his above conviction and convicted him under Section 306 IPC. The above judgment of the High Court is under challenge in this appeal.

2. This appeal must succeed for the simple reason that having acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 302 IPC - which was the only charge framed against him - the High Court could not have convicted him of the offence under Section 306 IPC. It is true that Section 222 Cr.P.C. entitles a Court to convict a person of an offence which is minor in comparison to the one for which he is trial but Section 306 IPC cannot be said to be a minor offence in relation to an offence under Section 302 IPC within the meaning of Section 222 Cr.P.C. for the two offences are of distinct and different categories. While the basic constituent of an offence under Section 302 IPC is homicidal death those of Section 306 IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof.

3. For the foregoing reason the appeal is allowed and the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC is set aside. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from his bail bonds.

Appeal allowed. Conviction u/s 306 IPC set aside.

********

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top