Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 19) observed that Section 498A having a wider scope, it will have to be examined as to whether the accused is to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A or in other words, the order of conviction passed by Sessions Court and affirmed by High Court deserves to be affirmed, notwithstanding the conviction under Section 304B having been set aside.

"Irrespective of the fact that accused have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 304B, Section 498A would cover the cases in which the wife is subjected to cruelty by husband or relatives of the husband which may result in death by way of suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical)", a bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar has said.

With this view, court upheld the conviction of one Parangouda and his wife, aged 66 and 61 years respectively for the offence of driving their daughter-in-law to end life by suicide under Section 306 of the IPC, though the charge was not framed against them.

Supreme Court added that omission to frame charge does not disable the court from convicting the accused if the guilt is found to have been proved on the evidence on record.

It further declared that physical disability of the victim would not disentitle to make the dying declaration, if she is found fit to make the statement, howsoever, brief it may be.

The appellants had assailed the Karnataka High Court's Dharwad bench order upholding their conviction for offences under Sections 498A, 304B and 34 of the IPC. They contended that none of the prosecution witnesses including the complainant, and father of the deceased, had supported the prosecution case.

The conviction ought not to have been made on the basis of dying declaration of the victim who was admitted to hospital with 70-80% of burn injuries and the doctor who declared her fit to record the statement even didn't mention blood pressure and pulse rate, they said.

Regarding the allegations, the bench said, "In the instant case, the dying declaration of the deceased would clearly indicate that deceased was mentally traumatised and she was unable to tolerate the torture and harassment meted out by the accused person on account of which she committed suicide. It is this taunting or mental torture which she could not withstand and forced her to commit suicide by self-immolation".

However, it said that the high court ought to have examined as to whether the accused could have been convicted for an offence for which no charge was framed. 

It added that it will have to be seen from the facts unfolded as to whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which they are being tried and whether the main facts sought to be established against them were explained to them clearly and whether they got a fair chance to defend themselves. 

"It appears to our mind as it appeared to the trial court and the high court to be genuine, true and not tainted with doubt or shrouded with mystery. The contents of the dying declaration suggest the possible explanation of the occurrence of the incident and it also appears to be the truthful version of the maker," the bench said.

Therefore, it held the accused persons guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 and Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone.

Case Title: Paranagouda And Another vs. The State of Karnataka And Another