Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said 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.

The court also 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.

A bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar 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.

The court, however, acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Section 304B IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, as the prosecution failed to prove the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before or immediately before her death.

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. 

If the answer is in the affirmative, then necessarily this court will have to proceed further and examine as to whether accused can be convicted for the offence not charged and if the answer is in the negative it would result in acquittal of the accused for said offence, the bench said.

The court found the acceptance of the victim's dying declaration as just and proper in view of evidence of the Tehsildar who recorded it and the doctor, who had said that she was conscious and was in a condition to speak.

"The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. If the dying declaration discloses that deceased was unconscious or could never have made any statement, the conviction cannot be sustained. Even non-mentioning of minute details cannot be a ground to reject the said declaration and brief statement would suffice. If the evidence on record would suggest that the deceased was not in a fit condition to make statement or declaration, the medical opinion cannot prevail," the bench said.

The court said that the physical disability suffered by the victim on account of the burn injuries sustained would not disentitle her to make statement, if said statement had been made consciously knowing the consequences thereof. 

Holding that the dying declaration cannot be brushed aside, the bench said, "There is no prescribed format for recording the dying declaration."

It pointed out that the perusal of the dying declaration in the instant case clearly suggested the same to be genuine and the maker had stated the true story. 

"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