Back
2002 Supreme(Raj) 1125
Supreme Court
Honble M.B. SHAH, K.G. BALAKRISHNAN & D.M. DHARMADHIKAR, JJ.
K. Prema S. Rao & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Yadha Srinivasa Rao & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1457-59 of 1995
Decided On : October 25, 2002
Mrs. Swarupa Reddy, S. Uday Kumar Sagar, B. Sridhar, K. Ram Kumar and Guntur Prabhakar, Advocates, for Appearing Parties
Headnote:Cr.P.C., 1973, Sec. 215 read with Sec.221(1) & (2) and Penal Code, Sec.498-A, 304(B), 306 and Evidence act, Sec. 113 – Omission or defect in framing charge – Omission to frame charge u/Sec.306 IPC – Held – Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the criminal court from convicting the accused for the offence which is found to have been proved on evidence on record – Sec.215 allow Criminal court to ignore any error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, if the accused was not, in fact mislead by such error or omission in framing the charge and it has not occasioned a failure of justice.
As provided in Section 215 of Cr.P.C. omission to frame charge under Section 306 IPC has not resulted in any failure of justice. We find no necessity to remit the matter to the trial court for framing charge under Section 306 IPC and direct a retrial for that charge. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306, IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence, which justify conviction of the appellant under Section 498A for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC of having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. The appellant was charged for an offence of higher degree causing ``dowry death under Section 304B which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment and maximum for life. Presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 498A, IPC. No further opportunity of defence is required to be granted to the appellant when he had ample opportunity to meet the charge under Section 498A, IPC. (Para 24)
(2). The deceased Krishna Kumari, second daughter of PW1 was married to Yadla Srinivasa Rao (hereinafter referred to as accused No.1), on 26.6.1 988. Accused No.1 was employed as Branch Post Master in the village where the spouses lived jointly with the parents of accused No.1.
(3). At the time of marriage father of the deceased, who was a teacher, gave a cash dowry of Rupees fifteen thousand and jewels worth fifteen thousand besides gift of five acres of land and a,house site in the course of marriage ritual described as ``Pasupukumkuma. It is explained that this gift of land was in the nature of `Stridhana given to the bride by the father for her maintenance.
(4). After three or four months of the marriage accused No. 1, husband of the deceased started demanding from the deceased execution of a deed in his favour of the land and house site gifted to her. Refusal on the part of the deceased to meet the demand was the cause of her continuous harassment. Taking advantage of his position as the Post Master in the village, accused No.1 never delivered mail sent to the deceased by her father and her sister Nagamani. Her younger sister after passing tenth class examination had to appear for Polytechnic Entrance Test. As a part of harassment of the deceased, accused No.1 did not deliver the Entrance Card. received from Kakatiya University addressed to the younger sister of the deceased which resulted in the former losing the admission to the test.
(5). The deceased somehow was able to lay her hands on the letters addressed to her and which had been concealed by accused No.1. On finding those letters she handed over the same to her father. This incident led to extreme point of harassment. Accused No.1 and his parents, accused Nos.2-3, drove the deceased out from their house with stern warning to her to restore those letters. This incident of cruelty was so grave and unbearable that she committed suicide by consuming a poisonous insecticide Endo-Sulphan on 22.10.1989. PW4, who had witnessed the incident of the deceased having been driven out of the house the previous day, also saw accused No.1 taking deceased to the hospital at Madhira. PW4 informed about it to father (PW1) of the deceased who rushed to the house of the accused to find Krishna Kumari, dead. The father then lodged a First Information Report, Ex.P1 within eight hours on the same day.
(6). All the three accused were charged in Session Case No.157 of 1999 by the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Nuzwid for offence of dowry death under Section 304B IPC and in the alternative under Section 498A, IPC for cruelty and harassment of such, magnitude as to drive the deceased to commit suicide. The prosecution examined the parents of the deceased of PW 12. PW3-4 were examined who had seen the deceased being driven out of the house and taken back only on their persuasion.
(7). The trial court by judgment dated 19.8.1991 accepted the evidence led by the prosecution of alleged cruel treatment and harassment of the deceased which drove her to commit suicide. It, however, held that on the evidence only offence under Section 498A, IPC is made out. It acquitted them of the offence under Sec. 304B, IPC. The three accused on their conviction for offence under Section 498A were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were sentenced to two months simple imprisonment each.
(8). The appellants i.e. parents of the deceased filed Criminal Revision No. 564/91 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against the
