Back
2003 Supreme(P&H) 823
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Virender Singh, J.
Shyam Sunder and another - Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 394-SB of 1991.
Decided On : 28 May, 2003
For the Appellants :Mr. Harsh Kinra, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Sheokand, AAG, Haryana.
The court clarified the distinction between homicidal death and suicidal death and the entitlement of the court to convict a person of a minor offense compared to the one for which they are tried.
Headnote:
306/452 Indian Penal Code - Criminal Law - [U/S 306, U/S 452] - The court discussed the applicability of Section 306 and Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and the distinction between homicidal death and suicidal death, ultimately setting aside the conviction under Section 306 but affirming the conviction under Section 452.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Sections 306/452 Indian Penal Code for allegedly setting a woman on fire, but the court found that the woman had committed suicide due to torture and humiliation caused by the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the conviction under Section 306 Indian Penal Code but affirmed the conviction under Section 452 Indian Penal Code, reducing the substantive sentence imposed on the appellants.
Issues: Applicability of Section 306 and Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, distinction between homicidal death and suicidal death, and the entitlement of the court to convict a person of a minor offense compared to the one for which they are tried.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the distinction between homicidal death and suicidal death and the entitlement of the court to convict a person of a minor offense compared to the one for which they are tried, ultimately setting aside the conviction under Section 306 but affirming the conviction under Section 452.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, acquitting the appellants of the charge under Section 306 Indian Penal Code but maintaining their conviction under Section 452 Indian Penal Code with a modification in the sentence.
JUDGMENT
Virender Singh, J. - Shayam Sunder and Raj Kishan, the two appellants-herein stand convicted under Sections 306/452 Indian Penal Code vide impugned judgment dated October 3, 1991, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari and have been sentenced as under :
U/S 306 Indian Penal Code RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for three months.
U/S 452 Indian Penal Code RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for two months.
2. The substantive sentences ere, however, ordered to run concurrently.
In short the case of prosecution is that on 11.3.1990 at about 6-20 PM, Daya Wanti wife of Jagdish Lal was taken to Civil Hospital Rewari with some burn injuries. The medical officer, who attended to her, immediately, sent ruqqa to the concerned police and at about 7-20 PM on the same day, after obtaining the opinion of the doctor, the statement of Daya Wanti (Ex PL) was recorded. In her statement, she stated that her husband Jagdish Lal was having some dispute with his elder brother Kishan Lal over portion of the house and agricultural land and he had also some dispute with Raj Kishan, (the appellant-herein). It is alleged that on 11.3.1990 around 1-30 PM Shyam Sunder alias Pappu appellant came to the house of the complainant under the influence of liquor and started abusing her. At that time, her husband was not present. She asked Shyam Sunder not to hurl filthy abuses. Shyam Sunder returned to his house. After sometime, the complainant and her mother-in-law Smt. Bhiranwa Bai went to the house of the Kishan Lal and told him and his wife Krishna Devi that their son had been abusing them for the last about 15 days and even on that day also he had abused Daya Wanti. After lodging the protest, they returned to their house. At about 5-30 PM on the same day, both the appellants came to their house and started abusing Daya Wanti. Her mother-in-law requested them no to do so. Both the appellants grappled with her and then Shyam Sunder appellant poured kerosene oil upon Daya Wanti and set her clothes on fire. She raised an alarm, which attracted her husband. On seeing him, both the appellants ran away from the spot. On these allegations, both the appellants were booked in this case.
3. After recording evidence, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution story to the effect that the present appellants had set Daya Wanti on fire after sprinkling kerosene oil on her clothes, does not stand established from the evidence but Daya Wanti in fact had committed suicide by burning herself on account of the torture and humiliation being cause to her by the appellants. Consequently, both the appellants were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and instead were convicted under Section 306 Indian Penal Code. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard Mr. Harsh Kinra, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sanjiv Sheokand, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. With their assistance I have gone through the entire record.
5. The main argument raised by Mr. Kinra is that the appellants were not charged under Section 306 Indian Penal Code by the trial Court and the charge framed against them was under section 302 Indian Penal Code only, for which they stand acquitted and no appeal has been filed by the State in this regard. He then contended that Section 222 Criminal Procedure Code entitles a Court to convict a person of an offence, which is minor in comparison to one for which he is tried and that Section 306 Indian Penal Code cannot be said to be a minor offence as compared to Section 302 Indian Penal Code within the meaning of Section 222 Criminal Procedure Code He then contended that both the offences are distinct and are of different categories. The basic ingredient of an offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code is homicidal death, whereas those of Section 306 Indian Pe
