SC remarks mere omission of charges does not disable court from convicting person for proven offence

New Delhi [India], October 26 : The Supreme Court in a recently pronounced decision has remarked that omission to frame charge does not disable the court from convicting the accused for the offence which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record.
A bench of justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar's remark came on October 19 when it convicted the parents-in-law of a woman under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The top court convicted the parents-in-law of the woman under Section 306 IPC despite the charges not being framed against them under those penal provisions.
The top court was hearing an appeal challenging the Karnataka High Court's Dharwad Bench order dated July 20 2022 which affirmed the Sessions Judge, Bagalkot decision dated September 14 2019.
The trial court had convicted them under Section 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The complainant in the case has alleged that his daughter's husband and parents-in-law had tortured the victim leading to the death of the woman who died by suicide by self-immolating herself.
The top court noted that the act of torture had forced the deceased to commit suicide.
"Omission to frame charge does not disable the court from convicting the accused for the offence which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The code has ample provisions to meet a situation like the one before us," the top court said.
"From the statement of charge framed under Section 304B and in the alternative Section 306, it is clear that all the facts and ingredients for framing the charge for an offence under Section 306 existed," the top court said.
"The mere omission on the part of the trial judge to mention Section 306 IPC with 498A would not preclude this Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the charge framed under Section 304B of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused has subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit suicide by self-immolation and as such non-framing of the specific charge would not be fatal in the instant case as no injustice is being caused to the accused," the top court said.
The court noted the evidence on record and said, "It can be safely noted 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 and not undertaking of such an exercise would result in failure of justice?"
The top court said, "Thus, it will have to be seen from the facts unfolded in the present case 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 the 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."
"In the instant case, the dying declaration of the deceased would clearly indicate that the deceased was mentally traumatized 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."
"In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC though the charge was not framed," the top court said.
However, the top court modified the sessions court order and acquitted the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 304B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
"The accused (appellant Nos.1 and 2) are now aged about 66 and 61 years respectively. They have already spent one year, one month and 27 days in prison. They do not have any past history of criminal record. Hence, a lenient view has to be taken while imposing the sentence," the top court said and convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 306 and Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for the period already undergone.