Conviction for offence for which charge was not framed

Conviction for offence for which charge was not framed

In view of S. 464, Cr.P.C. , it is possible for the appellate or revisional Court to convict an accused for an offence for which no charge was framed unless the Court is of the opinion that a failure of justice would in fact occasion. In order to judge whether a failure of justice has been occasioned, it will be relevant to examine whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which he is being convicted and whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him clearly and whether he got a fair chance to defend himself.            

The trial Court and also the High Court have recorded a clear finding that the accused had started making a demand of dowry soon after marriage. Even after his father-in-law had given him a colour T.V. a scooter and money for purchasing the flat, he did not feel satisfied and continued to harass his deceased wife. He used to frequently taunt her that some of the items given by way of gift at the time of marriage were of poor quality and were of his standard. He had also assaulted his wife and even his seven year old daughter on several occasions. It was in such circumstances that his wife took the extreme step of not only setting herself on fire, but also her two daughters, one of whom was only one year old. The letter written by deceased-wife just before taking such an extreme step speaks volume about the treatment meted out to her by the accused . Therefore, the basic ingredients of the offence under S. 306, IPC have been established by the prosecution. These features of the prosecution case were sought to be established by the prosecution in order to substantiate the charge under S. 498-A, IPC and also for showing that the accused had a motive to commit the crime of murder for which he was actually charged. The cross-examination of the witnesses show that every effort was made to demolish the aforesaid aspect of the prosecution case, namely, that neither any demand of dowry was made nor any gifts or presents or money was received by the accused at a subsequent stage and that deceased-wife had not been subjected to any kind of harassment or ill-treatment. The next question to be seen is whether the accused was confronted with the aforesaid features of the prosecution case in his statement under S.313, Cr.P.C. His statement runs into six pages where every aspect of the prosecution case referred to above was put to him. He also gave a long written statement in accordance with S. 233(2), Cr.P.C. wherein he admitted that deceased committed suicide. He also admitted that the scooter and colour T.V. were subsequently given to him by his in-laws but came out with a plea that he had paid money and purchased the same from his in-laws. There is no aspect of the prosecution which may not have been put to him. Therefore, in view of the material on record, the conviction under S. 306, IPC can safely be recorded and the same would not result in failure of justice in any manner.

(See, Dalbir sigh v. State of UP AIR 2004 SC 1990 .Sangarabonia Sreenu v. State of A.P., AIR 1997 SC 3233 : 1997 AIR SCW 3290 : 1997 Cri LJ 3955, Overruled)