In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that the mere omission or defect in framing charges does not preclude a trial court from convicting an accused if the evidence on record establishes their guilt. The case in question involved the conviction of the parents-in-law of a woman for abetting her suicide through dowry harassment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), despite this section not being a part of the original charges.
Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar delivered this judgment, asserting, “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 Supreme Court also emphasized that a person can be convicted of the offence under Section 498A of IPC (cruelty to wife) even if they have been acquitted under Section 304B of IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). The Court clarified, “A conviction under Section 498A can be upheld despite an acquittal under Section 304B IPC because the former has a broader scope.”
The case revolved around a woman who tragically set herself on fire and died by suicide due to the alleged torture she endured from her in-laws. The appellants (her in-laws) were ultimately convicted by the Supreme Court under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC based on a dying declaration made by the victim.
The Court cited the judgment in Kamlavva And Anr vs. State of Karnataka (2009) to establish that even when the burn injuries sustained by the victim were significant (70% to 80%), her dying declaration remained admissible.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 304B, as it found no direct connection between the dowry demand and the victim’s death. For similar reasons, the appellants were also acquitted of the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Significantly, the top court convicted the accused of the additional offence of abetting suicide 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 the deceased was mentally traumatized and unable to tolerate the torture and harassment by the accused, leading to her 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 stated.
However, considering the advanced age of the appellants (over 60 years), the Court handed down a relatively lenient sentence, which included the period of jail time already served along with a fine of ₹ 5,000.