The Supreme Court has observed that mere omission or defect in framing of charges cannot prevent a trial court from convicting an accused for an offence found to have been proved by the evidence on record.
The Bench of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar made the remarks while convicting the parents in-law of a woman, accused of driving her to commit suicide through dowry harassment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The accused were convicted for the offence, although Section 306 IPC was not part of the charges framed against them.
The Apex Court noted that non-framing of a specific charge would not be fatal in the instant case as no injustice was being caused to the accused, adding that the code had ample provisions to meet a situation like this.
It further said that a person could be convicted of the offence under Section 498A of IPC (cruelty to wife) even if s/he was acquitted under Section 304B of IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) because the former had a ‘broader’ scope.
The case pertained to a woman, who had set herself on fire and died by suicide, citing the torture she faced from her in-laws (appellants).
The accused-appellants were convicted by the Apex Court under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC based on the dying declaration made by the woman.
While acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 304B and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for lack of evidence, the Apex Court convicted them 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.
It said the dying declaration of the deceased clearly indicated that the woman was mentally traumatised and was unable to tolerate the torture and harassment meted out by the accused on account of which she committed suicide.
The Bench observed that on this account, the accused were liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, though charges were not framed.
However, considering the age of the appellants-accused (both are above 60 years), the top court of the country sentenced them to the period of jail time already undergone along with a fine of Rs 5,000.
(Case title: Paranagouda and Another vs State of Karnataka)