Omission in framing charges does not disable court from convicting accused for proven offence: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently ruled that mere omission or defect in the framing of charges does not prevent a trial court from convicting an accused for an offence that is found to have been proved by the evidence on record [Paranagouda and Another v. State of Karnataka]..Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar made the observation while convicting the parents in-law of a woman for driving her to commit suicide through dowry harassment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).Notably, the accused were convicted for this offence even though Section 306 IPC was not part of the charges framed against the two accused. ."Omission to frame charge does not disable the court from convicting the accused for the offence which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The code has ample provisions to meet a situation like the one before us ... The mere omission on the part of the trial judge to mention Section 306 IPC with 498A would not preclude this Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved ... non-framing of the specific charge would not be fatal in the instant case as no injustice is being caused to the accused," the top court said..In the same ruling, the top court also observed that a person can be convicted of the offence under Section 498A of IPC (cruelty to wife) even if s/he is acquitted under Section 304B of IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder)."A conviction under Section 498A can be upheld despite an acquittal under Section 304B IPC because the former has a broader scope," the Court explained. .The Court was dealing with a case where a woman had set herself on fire and died by suicide citing the torture she faced from her in-laws. Her in-laws (appellants) were ultimately convicted by the Supreme Court under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC based on a dying declaration made by the victim woman. The Court relied on the judgment in Kamlavva And Anr vs. State of Karnataka (2009) to hold that even if the burn injuries suffered by the victim was to the extent of 70% to 80%, the dying declaration of the deceased can be accepted..However, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 304B on finding that there was no direct link between the dowry demand and the death. For similar reasons, the appellants were also acquitted of the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.Pertinently, the top court convicted the accused for an additional offence of suicide abetment under Section 306 of IPC even though the trial court had not framed any charge under this provision. "The dying declaration of the deceased would clearly indicate that deceased was mentally traumatized and she was unable to tolerate the torture and harassment meted out by the accused person on account of which she committed suicide ... In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC though charge was not framed," the Court said..All the same, the Court took a lenient view of the punishment to be imposed on the appellants-accused, considering that they had crossed 60 years of age. The Court proceeded to sentence them to the period of jail time already undergone along with a fine of ₹ 5,000..[Read Judgment]

Omission in framing charges does not disable court from convicting accused for proven offence: Supreme Court

Related Stories