1997 JTR(SC) 732
1997 2 AICLR 579 ; 1997 AIR(SC) 3233 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 3290 ; 1997 34 AllCriC 818 ; 1998 1 APLJ 14 ; 1997 2 BLJR 1041 ; 1997 2 CCR(SC) 45 ; 1997 2 Crimes(SC) 55 ; 1997 CrLJ 3955 ; 1997 2 EastCrC(SC) 152 ; 1997 5 JT 47 ; 1997 3 Scale 611 ; 1997 5 SCC 348 ; 1997 SCC(Cri) 690 ; 1997 2 SCJ 512 ; 1997 3 SCR 957 ; 1997 2 UJ 1 ; 1997 KHC 3381 ; 1997 4 Supreme 214
1997(4) Supreme 214
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.K. Mukherjee and S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
Sangaraboina Sreenu -Appellant
versus
State of Andhra Pradesh -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 1990
Decided on 23-4-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : A. Subba Rao, Advocate.
For the Respondent : G. Prabhakar, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Section 306 IPC cannot be said to be a minor offence in relation to an offence u/s 302 IPC within the meaning of Section 222 Cr.P.C. for the two offences are of distinct and different categories.
Act
Referred
:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.222
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.302, S.306
(A) The appeal pertains to uxoricide where the accused was initially convicted under Section 302 IPC for murder by setting the wife on fire with kerosene oil. On appeal, the High Court set aside the murder conviction and substituted it with an offence under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide. The challenge to this High Court order questions the legality of substituting and convicting for an offence not framed in the trial. The substitution is legally untenable since Section 222 Cr.P.C. does not permit a court to convict of an offence in a different category merely because it is perceived as minor, especially when the trial charge was for an offence under Section 302 IPC and the alternative charge under Section 306 IPC pertains to suicidal death and abetment, which are distinct in basic constituents from homicidal death.
(B) The core legal principle is that a conviction for an offence not framed in the charge sheet is invalid, and Section 222 Cr.P.C. does not empower a court to convict of an offence in a different category from the one charged. Sections 302 and 306 IPC belong to distinct categories and cannot be used as alternatives under the provisions of Section 222 Cr.P.C.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was tried before the Sessions Judge, Warangal for uxoricide. The accusation was that on May 15, 1987 at or about 9.30 p.m. he poured kerosene oil on the body of his wife and set her on fire. The trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC. In the appeal preferred by him, the High Court set aside his conviction and convicted him under Section 306 IPC.
Findings of Court:
The High Court was not competent to convict the appellant of an offence under Section 306 IPC when the only charge framed against him was under Section 302 IPC, as the two offences are of distinct and different categories and Section 222 Cr.P.C. does not permit such substitution.
Issues:
Whether the High Court could set aside a conviction under Section 302 IPC and convict under Section 306 IPC when the accused was tried only on the charge of murder.
Ratio Decidendi:
Section 222 Cr.P.C. does not permit a court to convict a person of an offence which is in a different category from the one charged. Section 306 IPC, relating to abetment of suicide, is not a minor offence in relation to Section 302 IPC, and hence the substitution was illegal.
Result:
The appeal is allowed. The conviction under Section 306 IPC is set aside and the appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from his bail bonds.
(A) The appeal pertains to uxoricide where the accused was initially convicted under Section 302 IPC for murder by setting the wife on fire with kerosene oil. On appeal, the High Court set aside the murder conviction and substituted it with an offence under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide. The challenge to this High Court order questions the legality of substituting and convicting for an offence not framed in the trial. The substitution is legally untenable since Section 222 Cr.P.C. does not permit a court to convict of an offence in a different category merely because it is perceived as minor, especially when the trial charge was for an offence under Section 302 IPC and the alternative charge under Section 306 IPC pertains to suicidal death and abetment, which are distinct in basic constituents from homicidal death.
(B) The core legal principle is that a conviction for an offence not framed in the charge sheet is invalid, and Section 222 Cr.P.C. does not empower a court to convict of an offence in a different category from the one charged. Sections 302 and 306 IPC belong to distinct categories and cannot be used as alternatives under the provisions of Section 222 Cr.P.C.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was tried before the Sessions Judge, Warangal for uxoricide. The accusation was that on May 15, 1987 at or about 9.30 p.m. he poured kerosene oil on the body of his wife and set her on fire. The trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC. In the appeal preferred by him, the High Court set aside his conviction and convicted him under Section 306 IPC.
Findings of Court:
The High Court was not competent to convict the appellant of an offence under Section 306 IPC when the only charge framed against him was under Section 302 IPC, as the two offences are of distinct and different categories and Section 222 Cr.P.C. does not permit such substitution.
Issues:
Whether the High Court could set aside a conviction under Section 302 IPC and convict under Section 306 IPC when the accused was tried only on the charge of murder.
Ratio Decidendi:
Section 222 Cr.P.C. does not permit a court to convict a person of an offence which is in a different category from the one charged. Section 306 IPC, relating to abetment of suicide, is not a minor offence in relation to Section 302 IPC, and hence the substitution was illegal.
Result:
The appeal is allowed. The conviction under Section 306 IPC is set aside and the appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from his bail bonds.
ORDER
The appellant was put up for trial before the Sessions Judge, Warangal for uxoricide. The accusation against him was that on May 15, 1987 at or about 9.30 p.m. he poured kerosene oil on the body of his wife and set her on fire. The trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC but in the appeal preferred by him the High Court set aside his above conviction and convicted him under Section 306 IPC. The above judgment of the High Court is under challenge in this appeal.
2. This appeal must succeed for the simple reason that having acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 302 IPC - which was the only charge framed against him - the High Court could not have convicted him of the offence under Section 306 IPC. It is true that Section 222 Cr.P.C. entitles a Court to convict a person of an offence which is minor in comparison to the one for which he is trial but Section 306 IPC cannot be said to be a minor offence in relation to an offence under Section 302 IPC within the meaning of Section 222 Cr.P.C. for the two offences are of distinct and different categories. While the basic constituent of an offence under Section 302 IPC is homicidal death those of Section 306 IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof.
3. For the foregoing reason the appeal is allowed and the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC is set aside. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from his bail bonds.
Appeal allowed. Conviction u/s 306 IPC set aside.
********