NDLI: Paranagouda and Another Vs. The State of Karnataka and Another

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Penal Code 1860
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Issue for consideration: Whether the courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing the accused for the offences punishable u/ss. 498A, 304B read with s. 34 IPC and ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act; whether the conviction of the accused u/s. 304 B IPC would be sustainable; and whether accused can be convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 306 IPC though not charged for said offence. Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 498A, 304B rw s. 34, 306 – Cruelty against married women – Abetment of suicide - Accusedhusband and in-laws subjected the deceased-wife to such cruelty and harassment for dowry demand as to drive her to commit suicide by self-immolation – Recording of the dying declaration of the wife and thereafter she succumbed to her burn injuries – Conviction of the accused for the offences punishable u/ss. 498A, 304B/34 and s. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced accordingly – Justification:Held: Perusal of the dying declaration clearly suggests the same to be genuine, true and the maker has stated the true story – Dying declaration does not suggest that there was any proximate nexus to the act of committing suicide on account of preceding dowry demand or the demand of dowry on any particular date having triggered the deceased to commit the suicide or forced her to self immolate – Proximate link not being available, the conviction of the accused u/s 304B was improper and cannot be sustained and is set aside – In the light of dying declaration having been accepted to have been made by the deceased and the contents of the same disclosing that she was mentally traumatized, unable to withstand the torture meted out, which resulted in her committing suicide would suffice to convict the accused for the offence punishable u/s. 498A – It is this taunting or mental torture which she could not withstand and forced her to commit suicide by selfimmolation – Thus, the accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 306 though charge was not framed – As regards, aged accused-in laws, in view of the period of sentence already undergone, and not having any past history of criminal record, a lenient view is taken while imposing the sentence – Judgment and order of conviction passed by the courts below is modified - Appellants are acquitted for the offences punishable u/s. 304B and ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and convicted for the offence punishable u/ss. 306 and 498A read with s. 34 and sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone with fine – Dowry Prohibition Act – ss. 3 and 4. [Paras 13, 17, 19, 21, 29, 30]Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 215 – Effect of errors – Conviction of an accused for an offence with which he may not have been specifically charged with – Permissibility – Accused having been tried for the offences punishable u/ss. 498A, 304B IPC and ss. 3 and 4 of DP Act, if can be convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 306 IPC though not charged for said offence:Held: 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 – On facts, from the statement of charge framed u/s. 304B and in the alternative s. 306, it is clear that all the facts and ingredients for framing the charge for offence u/s. 306 existed – Mere omission on the part of the trial judge to mention s. 306 IPC with 498A would not preclude this Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved – In the charge framed u/s. 304B, it is clearly mentioned that dying declaration of the deceased indicates that 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 by self immolation and as such nonframing of the specific charge would not be fatal as no injustice is being caused to the accused – Thus, the accused persons liable to be convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 306 though charge was not framed – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 304B, 306 – Dowry Prohibition Act – ss. 3 and 4. [Paras 27, 29]
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 933
Petitioner	Paranagouda And Another
Respondent	The State Of Karnataka And Another
SCR	[2023] 15 S.C.R. 923
Judgement Date	2023-10-19
Case Number	3274

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Paranagouda and Another Vs. The State of Karnataka and Another

Please Log-in to view this content

Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs. Raju

Kamalakar Vs. State of Karnataka

Shanthamalleshappa Vs. State of Karnataka

Gupteswar Behera Vs. State of Odisha and Another

Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu and Others Vs. State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs. K. Yarappa Reddy

Ramabora @ Ramaboraiah & Anr Vs. State of Karnataka

Samghaji Hariba Patil Vs. State of Karnataka

Paranagouda and Another Vs. The State of Karnataka and Another

Paranagouda and Another Vs. The State of Karnataka and Another

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs. Raju

Kamalakar Vs. State of Karnataka

Shanthamalleshappa Vs. State of Karnataka

Gupteswar Behera Vs. State of Odisha and Another

Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu and Others Vs. State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs. K. Yarappa Reddy

Ramabora @ Ramaboraiah & Anr Vs. State of Karnataka

Samghaji Hariba Patil Vs. State of Karnataka

Paranagouda and Another Vs. The State of Karnataka and Another