Back
2015 Supreme(Manipur) 131
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
N. Kotiswar Singh, J.
Heisnam Joykumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Manipur – Respondent
Crl. (J) Appeal No. 5 of 2014
Decided On : 16-10-2015
For the Appellant : Mr. T. Rajendra.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sh. Yangya.
Headnote:
The court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 498-A, 304-B, and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for committing cruelty to the deceased victim woman for demand of dowry and abetment of suicide. The court found that the appellant had subjected the deceased to cruelty by willful conduct, which caused physical danger to her life, and that he had harassed her with a view to coercing her to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security. The court also found that the deceased had committed suicide and that the appellant had abetted its commission by committing cruelty and demanding dowry. The court rejected the appellant's arguments that the trial court had erred in altering the charges against him and that he had been prejudiced by the alteration.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and his mother were initially charged with murder under Section 302 of the IPC, but the trial court later altered the charges to Sections 498-A, 304-B, and 306 of the IPC. The appellant argued that the trial court had erred in altering the charges and that he had been prejudiced by the alteration. The appellant also argued that the evidence did not support the charges against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had not erred in altering the charges against the appellant and that he had not been prejudiced by the alteration. The court also found that the evidence supported the charges against the appellant and that he was guilty of committing cruelty to the deceased victim woman for demand of dowry and abetment of suicide.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in altering the charges against the appellant. 2. Whether the appellant was prejudiced by the alteration of charges. 3. Whether the evidence supported the charges against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the trial court had not erred in altering the charges against the appellant because the alteration was made before the judgment was pronounced and because the appellant had been given an opportunity to lead evidence relating to the altered charges. 2. The court held that the appellant had not been prejudiced by the alteration of charges because he had not shown that the alteration had caused him any failure of justice. 3. The court held that the evidence supported the charges against the appellant because it showed that he had subjected the deceased to cruelty by willful conduct, which caused physical danger to her life, and that he had harassed her with a view to coercing her to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security. The court also found that the deceased had committed suicide and that the appellant had abetted its commission by committing cruelty and demanding dowry.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 498-A, 304-B, and 306 of the IPC.
N. Kotiswar Singh, J.
1. Heard Mr. T. Rajendra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sh. Yangya, learned PP for the State.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.08.2014 passed in Session Trial No. 16 of 2013 by the appellant (the accused No. 1) who was convicted under Section 498-A/304-B /306/34 IPC and ordered to undergo sentence ranging from 3 to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and with fine, to run concurrently.
3. We will first deal with an important issue raised by the appellant which if upheld in favour of the appellant, may result in overturning the conviction and sentence. This issue relates to the alteration of charge ordered by the trial court. The appellant and the other co-accused, her mother, were initially charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC. The initial charges framed by the trial court on 18.11.2005 were as follows:-
(i) Firstly, that the appellant and the co-accused on or about 14.7.2000 at Keibul Mayai Leikai, 8 Km. West, being the husband and the mother-in-law of the victim woman Heisnam Ongbi Rebika Devi subjected her to cruelty by wilful conduct which caused physical danger to the life of the said woman and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(ii) Secondly, the appellant and the co-accused on or about 14.07.2000 at 11:30 am at Keibul Mayai Leikai, 8 Km. West, did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of Heisnam Ongbi Rebika Devi thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
On the basis of the aforesaid charges, the trial court examined as many as 13 prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, the defence also produced 4 defence witnesses. After 13 prosecution witnesses and 2 defence witnesses were examined, the prosecution submitted an application on 17.4.2010 for allowing to produce one witness namely, Loitongbam Amarjit Singh, brother of the deceased H. Rebika Devi on the ground that he was a material witness who had been mentioned by some prosecution and defence witnesses including the accused showing that said Shri L. Amarjit Singh was staying in the night at the residence of the accused, the day before the death of the deceased H. Rebika Devi. Though the said application was objected by the accused, the said application was allowed by the Court and accordingly, the said Amarjit Singh was examined as a prosecution witness No. 14 by the Court on 24.05.2013. After recording of evidence of the said Amarjit Singh, the accused were again examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 5.7.2013 and thereafter, the defence produced 2 witnesses being DW-3 and DW-4 who were examined on 18.02.2014 and 10.03.2014 respectively. The matter was, thereafter, taken up for hearing on conclusion of the recording of evidence as mentioned above. The hearing was taken up on 7.05.2014 which continued on 19.05.2014. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court observed on the basis of the materials on record that the allegations against the accused are for committing for cruelty to the deceased victim woman for demand of dowry and abetment of suicide and was of the view that there was no ground for attracting provisions of Section 302 IPC. Accordingly, the trial court after hearing the parties altered the charges to the new charges under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC and 306 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. After altering and reframing of the charge, the trial court read over and explained the new charges to the accused who pleaded not guilty to the altered charges. The trial court, thereafter, observing that as the stage of the case is for final hearing after examination of the prosecution and defence witnesses, gave opportunities to both the prosecution as well as to the accused persons for leading evidence relating to the altered charges. The prosecution declined to produce any witness. The learned counsel of the accused also submitted before the Court that no witness will be produced
