2006 JTR(SC) 948
2006 47 AIC 15 ; 2007 1 AICLR 378 ; 2007 1 AIR(Bom)(R) 186 ; 2006 AIR(SCW) 5532 ; 2006 2 ALD(Cri)(SC) 790 ; 2006 AllMR(Cri)(SC) 3560 ; 2007 1 ApexCJ(SC) 627 ; 2007 1 BLJ(SC) 22 ; 2006 4 CriCC 1085 ; 2007 CriLR 32 ; 2006 4 Crimes(SC) 170 ; 2007 CrLJ 51 ; 2006 2 DMC 651 ; 2007 1 EastCrC(SC) 140 ; 2006 3 JCC 1950 ; 2006 10 Scale 148 ; 2006 10 SCC 322 ; 2006 3 SCC(Cri) 554 ; 2006 8 SCJ 352 ; 2007 1 WLC 106 ; 2006 7 Supreme 705
2006(7) Supreme 705
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
Arijit Pasayat and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Ishwarchand Amichand Govadia & Ors.—Appellants
versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr.—Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1051 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 731 of 2006)
Decided on 13-10-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : R.K. Gupta and Dharam Bir Raj Vohra, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Shivaji M. Jadhav, Ms. Aparajita Singh, S.S. Shinde and V.N. Raghupathy, Advocates.
Act
Referred
:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.498(a), S.306
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.304(b)
(A) The case involves the application of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to dowry death, and Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC, relating to abetment of suicide and cruelty by husband or relatives, respectively. The central legal conflict arises from the Trial Court's decision to add a charge under Section 304B IPC based on a subsequent death certificate produced four years after the incident, while simultaneously keeping the admissibility of that same certificate in abeyance pending the examination of the medical expert. The interplay between these sections necessitates a clear determination of the cause of death to justify the specific application of Section 304B over other charges.
(B) While the court acknowledges that charges can be altered at any stage of the trial, such an alteration must be based on admissible evidence. It is legally inconsistent to defer the decision on the admissibility of a document while simultaneously using that same document as the primary basis for altering the charges against the accused.
Facts of the case:
The appellants were facing trial for offences under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC. During the trial, the prosecution sought to introduce a second death certificate dated 10.4.2004, which indicated a cause of death different from the original certificate dated 18.5.2000. The Trial Court kept the decision on the admissibility of this second certificate in abeyance until the examining doctor could be questioned. However, on the same day, the Trial Court allowed an application to add a charge under Section 304B IPC, seemingly relying on the contents of the contested certificate. This decision was upheld by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Trial Court had acted inconsistently by refusing to decide on the admissibility of the subsequent death certificate while simultaneously using it to justify the addition of a charge under Section 304B IPC. The court observed that since the cause of death was central to the charge of dowry death, the question of framing such a charge should have been deferred until the relevance and acceptability of the second medical certificate were established through the examination of the doctor.
Issues:
Whether the Trial Court can legally alter the charges to include Section 304B IPC based on a document whose admissibility has been kept in abeyance by the court itself.
Ratio Decidendi:
Although charges can be altered at any stage, the basis for such alteration must be legally sound. If the court has deferred the decision on the admissibility of a piece of evidence, it cannot simultaneously rely on that evidence to alter the charges, as this would be contradictory and prejudicial.
Result:
The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside.
(A) The case involves the application of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to dowry death, and Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC, relating to abetment of suicide and cruelty by husband or relatives, respectively. The central legal conflict arises from the Trial Court's decision to add a charge under Section 304B IPC based on a subsequent death certificate produced four years after the incident, while simultaneously keeping the admissibility of that same certificate in abeyance pending the examination of the medical expert. The interplay between these sections necessitates a clear determination of the cause of death to justify the specific application of Section 304B over other charges.
(B) While the court acknowledges that charges can be altered at any stage of the trial, such an alteration must be based on admissible evidence. It is legally inconsistent to defer the decision on the admissibility of a document while simultaneously using that same document as the primary basis for altering the charges against the accused.
Facts of the case:
The appellants were facing trial for offences under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC. During the trial, the prosecution sought to introduce a second death certificate dated 10.4.2004, which indicated a cause of death different from the original certificate dated 18.5.2000. The Trial Court kept the decision on the admissibility of this second certificate in abeyance until the examining doctor could be questioned. However, on the same day, the Trial Court allowed an application to add a charge under Section 304B IPC, seemingly relying on the contents of the contested certificate. This decision was upheld by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Trial Court had acted inconsistently by refusing to decide on the admissibility of the subsequent death certificate while simultaneously using it to justify the addition of a charge under Section 304B IPC. The court observed that since the cause of death was central to the charge of dowry death, the question of framing such a charge should have been deferred until the relevance and acceptability of the second medical certificate were established through the examination of the doctor.
Issues:
Whether the Trial Court can legally alter the charges to include Section 304B IPC based on a document whose admissibility has been kept in abeyance by the court itself.
Ratio Decidendi:
Although charges can be altered at any stage, the basis for such alteration must be legally sound. If the court has deferred the decision on the admissibility of a piece of evidence, it cannot simultaneously rely on that evidence to alter the charges, as this would be contradictory and prejudicial.
Result:
The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside.
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J.—Leave granted.
2. Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dismissing the Criminal Writ Petition no. 1770/2004 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution).
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Appellants are facing trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 306, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC). The case of the prosecution is that Sharmila, daughter of the complainant was married to appellant no.3 and appellant nos. 1, 2 and 4 are her father-in-law, brother-in-law and mother-in-law respectively. The Sessions Case No. 3791 of 2003 is pending trial in the Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Thane. An application was filed before the Trial Court by the complainant through the prosecuting counsel for producing the death certificate dated 10.4.2004 indicating cause of death as certified by Dr. R.M. Dhotre. The accused persons opposed acceptance of the document as evidence on the ground that along with police papers a certificate of death, dated 18.5.2000 by Dr. R.M. Dhotre, was filed which stated the probable cause of death to be cardio respiratory failure due to acute respiratory failure. In the subsequent certificate a different cause of death was indicated. That being so, it was submitted that the subsequent certificate should not be taken on record.
4. The Trial Court held that the production of the certificate dated 10.4.2004 cannot be decided at that stage as prosecution has not explained as to how the certificate was sought to be brought on record after 4 years. Therefore, the matter relating to production of the certificate was kept in abeyance to be decided after examination of Dr. R.M. Dhotre. On the same date another application was filed for adding charge under Section 304B IPC. The trial Court accepted this prayer which was affirmed by the High Court. Same is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.
5. It was submitted that the trial Court having already decided in the connected application that the question of accepting the subsequent document would be taken up after the examination of doctor, should not have altered the charge primarily based on the same document.
6. In response, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the charge can be altered at any time and there is nothing wrong in the order passed by the Trial Court. It is submitted that since charge can be altered at any stage, no prejudice has been caused to the accused.
7. There is no quarrel with the proposition that the charge can be altered at any stage. But the question is whether in view of the order passed on the same date the order relating to alteration of charge has been passed by the Trial Court. It is to be noted that the Trial Court itself noted that as per the first certificate the cause of death was cardio respiratory failure due to acute respiratory failure. It, however, noted that some chemicals were noted in the viscera. The effect of the presence of those chemicals has necessarily to be considered in the background of both the subsequent certificates, in case the latter certificate is taken on record. That being so, it would be proper for the Trial Court to defer the question of framing charge under Section 304B after examination of Dr. R.M. Dhotre and relevance of the subsequent certificate and its acceptability.
8. The High Court has failed to consider the relevant aspects and, should not have dismissed the application. The impugned order is set aside.
The appeal is allowed.
Appeal allowed.
***************