Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Ravindra Bhat, Aravind Kumar, JJ.
Paranagouda and Another - Appellants
Versus
The State of Karnataka and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 3274 of 2023 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.12216 of 2022)
Decided On : 19-10-2023
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 34 and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Cruelty and dowry death – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – Deceased died of burn injuries – Reason for self-immolation by deceased was on account of her inability to tolerate torture meted out by accused persons and she was not able to withstand the same – Physical disability suffered by her on account of burn injuries sustained would not disentitle her to make statement, if said statement had been made consciously knowing consequences thereof and such statement or declaration cannot be brushed aside only on the ground that 70% to 80% burn injuries having been sustained by her – Dying declaration is genuine and maker has stated true story – However, dying declaration would not suggest that there was any proximate nexus to act of committing suicide on account of preceding demand for dowry – Proximate link not being available, conviction of accused under Section 304B of IPC cannot be sustained – But torture meted out, which resulted in her committing suicide would suffice to convict accused for offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. (Paras 12, 13, 17 and 21)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 215 and 464 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 – Abetment of suicide – Omission to frame charge does not disable court from convicting accused for offence which is found to have been proved on evidence on record – Mere omission on part of trial judge to mention Section 306 IPC with 498A would not preclude High Court from convicting accused for said offence when found proved – Mere omission or defect in framing of charge would not be fatal if from statement of charge under Section 304B and in alternative Section 498A, it is clear that all facts and ingredients for framing of charge under Section 306 existed in the case, same would suffice – Accused persons are liable to be convicted for offence punishable under Section 306 IPC though charge was not framed – Appellants acquitted for offences punishable under Section 304B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and convicted for offence punishable under Section 306 and Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for period already undergone with fine of Rs.5000/- each. (Paras 28, 29, 30 and 31)
Facts of the case:
Judgment dated 20.07.2022 passed by High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench dismissing Criminal Appeal No.2847 of 2012 by affirming judgment and order of sentence convicting appellants passed by Trial Court for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been called in question.
Findings of Court:
High Court ought to have examined as to whether accused could have been convicted for an offence for which no charge was framed and not undertaking of such an exercise would result in failure of justice. It will have to be seen from facts unfolded in present case as to whether accused was aware of basic ingredients of offence for which they are being tried and whether main facts sought to be established against them were explained to them clearly and whether they got a fair chance to defend themselves. If answer is in affirmative, then necessarily this Court will have to proceed further and examine as to whether accused can be convicted for offence not charged and if answer is in negative it would result in acquittal of accused for said offence.
Result : Appeal allowed in part.
JUDGMENT :
Aravind Kumar, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The judgment dated 20.07.2022 passed by High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.2847 of 2012 by affirming the judgment and order of sentence convicting the appellants passed by the Sessions Judge, Bagalkot in S.C. No.35 of 2011 dated 14.09.2012 for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short the ‘DP Act’) has been called in question.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. The third daughter of the complainant (Shri Chandappa Gooli) named Akkamahadevi was married to second respondent/accused No.1 herein on 16.05.2010. A complaint came to be lodged by Sri Chandappa Gooli, father of the deceased on 20.12.2010 alleging thereunder that a dowry of Rs. 31,000 and 1.5 tolas of gold was given at the time of marriage and additional dowry of Rs. 50,000 and gold was demanded after two months of marriage. It was alleged that accused No.1 and his parents (appellants) gave physical and mental torture to his daughter and unable to bear the same she committed suicide by self-immolating namely by pouring kerosene and lighting fire. A dying declaration came to be recorded on 20.12.2010 and she died on 24.12.2010 due to burn injuries. Initially FIR came to be registered in Crime No.143 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Section 323, 498A read with Section 34 of IPC and 504 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act and on her death on 24.12.2010, Section 304B of IPC was added. On completion of investigation charge-sheet came to be filed and the jurisdictional sessions judge took cognizance of the offence alleged against the accused persons namely husband-accused No.1 (R-2 herein), appellant No’s 1 and 2 herein (accused No.2 and 3) and Smt. Ningamma accused No.4. On behalf of the prosecution, 32 witnesses were examined as PW-1 to PW-32 and they got marked 50 documents as Ex.P-1 to P-50 and three material objects as MO 1 to MO 3. On closure of prosecution side, the accused were examined and their statements also came to be recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused No.4 (mother of accused No.3) had expired on 28.02.2012 and as such the proceedings against her stood abated. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned advocates appearing for accused No. 1 to 3, they came to be convicted for the offences alleged against them. The learned Trial Judge had convicted the accused by relying upon the dying declaration (Ex.P.45) and sentenced them to undergo 7 years of simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 304B, five years of simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, one year of simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 498A r/w Section 34 of IPC and one year of simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act with fine of Rs. 1000 for each of the offences under Section 498A, 304B and Section 4 of DP Act for each of the accused and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months, and fine of Rs. 31,000 each for the offence under Section 3 of DP Act with default sentence of three months. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
4. Being aggrieved by said judgment, appeal came to be preferred on various grounds and primarily on the ground that deceased had suffered burn injuries to the extent of 70-80% and she was not in a position to speak. It was also contended that Doctor PW-32 who had certified that deceased was able to speak had not even recorded the blood pressure and pulse rate of the deceased in the case-sheet and the treated doctor PW-31 has also admitted that general condition of the deceased was poor at the time of admission to the hospital itself. It was also urged that evidence which was available before the trial court was not appreciated in proper perspective and mere dying declaration cannot be the sole basis of conviction unless it was corroborated. It was
Omission to frame charge does not disable court from convicting accused for offence which is found to have been proved on evidence on record.
Dowry Death - Dying declaration - Conviction can be based on dying declaration alone without corroboration if the court finds the dying declaration trust-worthy and genuine.
The dying declaration was the sole basis for conviction, and the distinction between 'murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code was cr....
The discretionary nature of the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act in cases of abetment of suicide based on cruelty, and the court's authority to consider all circumstances of ....
Dying declarations can serve as the sole basis for conviction if proven credible, establishing link between dowry demands and resulting harassment leading to the victim's death.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
