IMPORTANT POINT
Where accused appellant was convicted under Sections 306 and 498-A of Ranbir Penal Code but evidence on record showed that in examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no question was put up relating to demand of dowry and abetment of suicide, conviction was held liable to be set aside.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.—

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Ranbir Penal Code (in short the ‘RPC’) while reducing the sentence so far as the offence relatable to Section 306 is concerned. The custodial sentence and fine of Rs.500/- was confirmed. Learned Sessions Judge, Kathua had found the appellant guilty as afore-noted and had sentenced the appellant to undergo RI for 7= years and 2 years respectively and fine with default stipulation. Appellant No.1 is the mother of appellant No.2. The present appellant and one Jatinder Kumar, brother of appellant No.2 faced trial for alleged commission of offence referred to above.

2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

On 29.5.1990 Suman Lata (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was brought to district Hospital Kathua. She had sustained burn injuries. Police came to know about this occurrence. An Assistant Sub-Inspector Amar Chand Padha reached there. Statement of the deceased was recorded. On the basis of the statement so given First Information Report came to be lodged. This was under Section 498-A of RPC. The victim was taken to a Government Hospital at Jammu. Another statement of the victim came to be recorded. This was recorded at Jammu on 29.5.1990. This was also recorded by a Police Officer. Later, on sixth day, i.e. 3.6.1990 another statement came to be recorded. This statement was recorded by Gulam Naib Tehsildar Digiana. The victim died on 6.6.1990. This is thus a case where one statement of the deceased came to be recorded on 29.5.1990. This was recorded by a police officer in the District Hospital, Kathua. Another statement came to be recorded after she was admitted in the SMGS Hospital. This statement was again recorded on 29.5.1990. This was again by a police officer. Another statement came to be recorded by Gulam Nabi, Executive Magistrate on 3.6.1990. The trial Court on the basis of the first statement which was recorded in the District Hospital, Kathua and after referring to oral as also documentary evidence convicted two of the accused persons.

There were in fact several statements recorded of the deceased. They gave entirely different scenario. The trial Court noticed that at the stage of framing charge the question was as to which of the different versions was to be preferred. The Court was required to appreciate whether it was a case of murder or abetment to suicide. The trial Court by order dated 1.11.1998 framed charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 RPC. As the trial Court itself noted in its judgment, in case the earlier statement of the deceased was believed the other two statements cannot be ignored because their evidentiary value could be appreciated and, therefore, the proper charge was under Section 302 read with Section 34 RPC.

Sixteen witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version. As the accused pleaded innocence they also examined 11 witnesses. The trial Court proceeded on the premises that from the beginning two versions of the deceased were there; one relating to suicide and the other relating to murder. Even though the charge was framed under Section 302 read with Section 34 RPC the trial Court felt that the appropriate conviction would be under Sections 306 and 498-A of RPC. The conclusions were questioned before the High Court. By the impugned judgment the High Court held that whatever be the charge framed the question is appreciation of evidence and accordingly upheld the conviction.

3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the ingredients of Sections 306 498-A are absent and in any event no question was put under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’) relating to these offences.

4. The respondent-State on the other hand supported the judgment. So far as the ing