The judgment established the legal principle that the court can convict an accused for an alternate offence even without framing a charge for that specific offence, based on the interpretation of legal provisions and the sufficiency of evidence.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Villupuram in S.C.No.316 of 2016 dated 17.08.2017.)

1. This Appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 498(A) and 306 I.P.C, passed by the trial Court in S.C.No.316 of 2016 by the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Villupuram.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/1st accused married one Almas on 19.07.2009 as per Islamic customs. The expense for the marriage ceremony was done by the bride family. They also gave 10 sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.15,000/- cash, to the accused. On 11.09.2014, Almas committed suicide by hanging herself due to the unbearable torture caused by her husband and his family members. Hence, the complaint by the brother of the deceased Almas, was lodged with the respondent police.

3. Based on the complaint, F.I.R in Crime No.165 of 2014 was registered initially under Section 174(3) Cr.P.C. Later, on completion of investigation, final report filed against 6 persons. The trial Court, on committal, framed charges for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) I.P.C.

4. To prove those charges, prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.17, and marked 18 exhibits. On the side of the defence, the requisition letter of the police to conduct post-mortem was marked as Ex.D.1 and burnt piece of shawl cloth marked as M.O.1.

5. The Trial Court, on appreciating the evidence, held that husband, who is the first accused is guilty of offence under Section 498 (A) I.P.C, sentenced him to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, 3 months simple imprisonment. The Trial Court acquitted the accused 2 to 6 from both the charges.

6. As far as the charge under Section 304(B) I.P.C, the trial Court found that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted A1 for offence under Section 304(B) I.P.C but instead convicted him under Section 306 I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, six months simple imprisonment. The said sentence and conviction is challenged by the first accused in this appeal.

7. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant primarily contended that, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 306 I.P.C without framing a charge is an irregularity which cannot be cured. While, the appellant was tried for offence under Section 304(B) I.P.C, the trial Court having acquitted him for the said charge, cannot convict him without framing a charge under Section 306 I.P.C and giving an opportunity to the accused to defend himself.

8. Further, the Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the ingredients for offence under Section 304(B) I.P.C is entirely different for offence under Section 306 I.P.C, they are not cognate offences. Particularly, when there is a statutory presumption against the accused to face trial under Section 304(B) I.P.C and having found that the accused is not guilty for the said offence, the trial Court ought not to have convicted the accused for offence under Section 306 I.P.C without altering the charge and when there is no material to show the accused abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide.

9. Regarding the conviction under Section 498(A) I.P.C, the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that since the deceased died within 7 years of marriage, the RDO has conducted enquiry and he, in his report has categorically stated that there is no evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to any dowry harassment/ cruelty. While so, conviction under Section 498-A of I.P.C is liable to be set aside.

10. Per contra, the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that