( 1 ) APPELLANT Sukhdev has preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentence passed by Shri D. S. Jam, First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No. 106/87 for offences under Section 302 of I. P. C. and 498-A of Cr. P. C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and 3 yearst R. I. and a fine of Rs. 250/-, respectively.

( 2 ) THE police Kotwali, Lashkar, Gwalior filed a case against appellant Sukhdev, his father Hiralal, his mother Bettibai, brother Raghunath and brothers wife Bhagwandevi, under Section 302/34 of I. P. C.

( 3 ) THE prosecution alleges that the cruelty was committed upon Munnibai, wife of appellant and she was done to death.

( 4 ) EX. P/2 lodged by Babulal (P. W. 3) is that the deceased Munnibai died suspicious death and several complaints earlier 19 that of cruelty were made against in laws who used to beat her and also demanded dowry. It is also said that on 2. 2. 1987, at about 4. 30 p. m. the brother of Sukhdev had come and informed that Munnibai is behaving abnormally and not well and some called, whereas according to the neighbours, tne death of Munnibai was suppressed.

( 5 ) AFTER usual investigation, the challan was filed.

( 6 ) THE appellant abjured the guilt and contended that he has been falsely implicated.

( 7 ) THE prosecution has examined as many as fifteen witnesses, namely, Prahladkumar, P. W. 1, Haidar Ali, P. W. 2, Babulal, P. W. 3, Keshavram, P. W. 4, Dr. D. S. Badkur, P. W. 5, Ku. Ganga, P. W. 6, Ramdas, P. W. 7, Vishambhar, P. W. 8, Nellamsingh, P. W. 9, Gajendrasingh, D. W. 1, Dalveersingh, D. W. 2 and Gyasi, D. W. 3.

( 8 ) THE trial Court acquitted four accusedpersons and convicted the appellant Sukhdev for the offence under Section 302, I. P. C. 498-A, Cr. P. C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and three years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 2 50/-, respectively.

( 9 ) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentence. There is an appeal against acquittal of the respondents namely Raghunath, Bhagwandevi, Hiralal and Bettibai. There is another appeal for enhancement of sentence of the accused Sukhdev by the State.

( 10 ) SHRI J. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant contended that in this case the charge has not been properly framed. He contends that according to the prosecution, the death had taken place at 5 oclock in the evening. He says that the report was made at 18. 30 on 2. 2. 1987. He further contended that one of the circumstances sought to be relied upon by the prosecution and which has weighed heavily with the trial Court and the question No. 25 under Sections 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been put relate to the timing of death. The trial Court discussed the same in para 48. The trial Court held that the deceased died at 2 or 2. 30 p. m. , whereas the accused, in his statement, has stated that she did not die at 2 to 2. 30 but died at about 5 oclock. ( 11 ) THE charge framed against Sukhdev reads as under: (HINDI MATTER)

( 12 ) A bare perusal of the charge shows that the offence was committed at 6. 30 in the evening on 2. 2. 1987.

( 13 ) SECTION 212 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that: Section 212 Particulars as to time, place and person The charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence, and the person (if any) against whom, or the thing (if any) in respect of which, it was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged.

( 14 ) THE time of the commission of offence is a great significance. According to the prosecution, the death had taken place at 2 or 2. 30 and the charge has been framed by the learned Sessions Judge that the death was caused at 6. 30 p. m. No conviction under Section 302, I. P. C. can be based on the basis of such charge.

( 15 ) SHRI R. P. John, Panel Lawyer for the State and Shri Arun Pateriya, learned counsel for the complainant fairly conceded that there is sub