2001 (1) TMI 993 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 304-B IPC without specific charge.
2. Evidence and presumption under Section 304-B IPC.
3. Failure of justice and opportunity to defend.

Summary:

1. Conviction under Section 304-B IPC without specific charge:
The appellant was initially charged under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his wife, Tanima. The High Court, however, convicted him under Section 304-B IPC (dowry death) and Section 498-A IPC (cruelty by husband or relatives) despite the absence of a specific charge under Section 304-B IPC. The Supreme Court examined whether an accused charged under Section 302 IPC could be alternatively convicted under Section 304-B IPC without the said offence being specifically included in the charge. The Court noted that Sections 221 and 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allow for conviction of an offence not included in the charge if it is a minor offence or if there is doubt about the specific offence at the time of framing the charge. However, the Court concluded that Section 304-B IPC is not a minor offence vis-à-vis Section 302 IPC due to the distinct and different nature of the offences.

2. Evidence and presumption under Section 304-B IPC:
The Court highlighted the statutory presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, which mandates that if a woman dies under abnormal circumstances within seven years of marriage and was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before her death, it shall be presumed that the husband or relative caused the dowry death. The burden of disproving this presumption lies on the accused. The Court emphasized that the accused must be given an opportunity to disprove this presumption, which was not afforded to the appellant in this case.

3. Failure of justice and opportunity to defend:
The Supreme Court underscored the principle of natural justice, particularly the right to be heard (audi alterum partem). It was noted that convicting the appellant under Section 304-B IPC without giving him the opportunity to defend against this specific charge would result in a grave miscarriage of justice. The Court stated that the trial court should have called upon the accused to enter his defence regarding the offence under Section 304-B IPC once it found that the prosecution failed to establish the charge under Section 302 IPC. The failure to do so deprived the appellant of the opportunity to disprove the presumption under Section 304-B IPC.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the High Court under Section 304-B IPC and remanded the case to the trial court. The trial court was directed to proceed from the stage of defence evidence, giving the appellant notice that he is liable to be convicted under Section 304-B IPC unless he disproves the presumption. The acquittal of the other two accused remained unchallenged and was not affected by this decision.