IMPORTANT POINT
Accused charged with and tried for offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code cannot be convicted under Section 306 Indian Penal Code as offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code is a distinct and different offence.

JUDGMENT

B. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J. - This appeal coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition of Appeal the Record of the evidence and Proceedings before the said Court of Sessions and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. A.D. Jagadish Chandra. Advocate for the Appellant/Accused and of Mr. R. Karthikeyan. Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the public Prosecutor on behalf of the State the Court delivered the following judgment:

The accused in S.C. No.70 of 1999 before the learned II Additional Sessions Judge. Madras who was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. has come forward with the instant appeal.

2. The facts of the case briefly' stated are as follows:

One Baby Lizie was living with her parents at Perambalur. During the month of April 1972 she was found missing from the house and subsequently she was traced in Royapettah Hospital on 9-7-1972 in the emergency ward undergoing treatment for the alleged consumption of Hydro Chloric Acid. The parents who were searching for the girl were informed by the police. The parents went to the hospital on 10-7-1992. Baby Lizie told her mother that after leaving the house, while she was loitering near the Central Station the accused and another two women picked her up and the accused lured her to make her a film-star and took her to various places. Then he forced her to prostitution. Later on he informed her that he had sold her to a person at Bombay for Rs. 50,000/ - and she should go to Bombay. Baby Lizie refused to go to Bombay so she was kept confined in a room. Because of her refusal the second accused Usha caught hold of her legs and the first accused forcibly administered Hydro Chlaric Acid into her mouth which was kept in the house to clean the toilet. She was brought to the hospital by Usha's brother Gopal.

3. The concerned Police initially registered a case in Crime No. 998 of under Section 326 I.P.C. Baby Lizie was taking treatment at Royapettah Hospital from 20-5-1992 but on 208-1992 at about 3.00 p.m. she died. Then the charges were altered to Section 329 and 302 read with 34. I.P.C. The trial Court examined twenty witnesses marked 26 documents and the bottle which contained the Hydro Chloric Acid was marked as M.O.I. After the trial the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the case under Section 302 I.P.C. was not made out, but it was a case under Section 306 I.P.C. Accordingly the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo 7 years rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. Questioning the correctness of the judgment the accused preferred this appeal.

4. Heard both sides.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that Section 306 I.P.C. is not a minor or an ancillary offence to Section 302 I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge having not framed charges under Section 306 I.P.C. ought to have not convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. in the absence of a charge against him under Section 306 I.P.C.

6. That question that arises is whether a person charged under Section 302 I.P.C. could be convicted for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. without a charge under Section 306 I.P.C.

7. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) drew my attention to the decision reported in Laklyit Singh v. State of Punjab1, wherein their Lordships of the Apex Court have held that the facts and circumstances put forward against the accused in that case and the case put forth by the accused when questioned Section 313 Cr.P.C established that there was demand for dowry. Their Lordships held that it cannot be said that the accused are prejudiced because the cross-examination of the witnesses as well as the answers given by him under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. would show that they had enough of notice of the allegations which attract Section 306 I.P.C. also. Their Lordships have also referred to