Holding

An accused may be convicted of an offence not specifically charged if the evidence proves it and the omission or error in framing the charge has not caused prejudice; therefore, the conviction under Section 498A IPC stands.

Summary

Dinesh Seth was married to Rama, who died by hanging within two years of marriage. The trial court framed a charge under IPC Section 304B (dowry death) read with Section 34 and convicted the accused. On appeal, the Delhi High Court acquitted them of the 304B charge but convicted Seth under IPC Section 498A (cruelty) and sentenced him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment. The Supreme Court was asked (i) whether the failure to frame a specific charge under 498A warrants quashing the conviction, and (ii) whether a conviction under 498A is permissible after acquittal on 304B. Relying on CrPC Sections 221, 222 and 464, the Court held that an accused can be convicted of an offence not specifically charged if the evidence establishes it and the omission or error in framing the charge does not cause prejudice. Since Seth was aware of the cruelty allegation and had a full opportunity to defend, no prejudice was shown. Moreover, cruelty is a common ingredient of both sections, and 498A has a broader scope, so the conviction under 498A was valid. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The omission to frame a specific charge under Section 498A IPC, by itself, is sufficient to quash a conviction.
Whether a conviction under Section 498A IPC can be sustained after the High Court acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 304B IPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 221, s. 222, s. 464
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 304B, s. 498A

Subjects

Criminal ProcedureCharge FramingSection 221 CrPCSection 222 CrPCSection 464 CrPCIPC Section 498AIPC Section 304BDowry DeathCrueltyPrejudiceAppellate Review

Judgment

[2008] 12 S.C.R. 113
)

·DINESH SETH A
V.
STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
(Criminal Appeal No. 1239 of 2003)
AUGUST 18, 2008
.. I
. ... ... , ·B
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ]
..
. ·. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
ss. 221,222 and 464 - Conviction of accused for an of-
fence not specifically charged with -. HELD: In certain situa- C
tions accused can be convicted of an offence,.with which he
may not have. been specifically charged - In the in,stant case,
by virtue of trial of accuse·d for offence uls 304-8 !PC, omis-
sion of trial' court to frame specific charge u/s 498-A did not
prejudice the cause of the accused nor did it result in failure D
of-justice -·Accused was not only aware of the charge of "cru-
elty"i but he also got and availed the opportunity to defend
himself with reference to that charge - Penal Code, 1860 -
ss. 304-8 and 498-A.
.. .Penal Code, 1860: E

ss. 304-8 and 498-A - Accused charged and convicted
by trial court of offence punishable u/s 304-8 /PC, but High
Court convicting him u/s 498-A - HELD: Ingredient of cruelty
- ~ is common to s. 304-8 and 498-A - s. 498-A has a wider spec- F
trum - High Court did not commit any error in convicting the
appellant u/s 498-A ..:.. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
ss. 221, 222 and 464.
. Accused-appellant's wife was stated to have died un-
natural death in her matrimonial home within two years . G
of her. marriage. There were allegations of harassment
and torture against the appellant and his family members.
The trial court framed charge u/s 304-B r/w s.34 fPC against
the appellant, his two brothers and mother; and convicted
- 113 H
,.
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.
(

A all of them of the charge. The High Court acquitted all the
accused of the charge u/s 304-8, but convicted the ap-
pellant u/s 498-A IPC.
In the instant appeal the questions for consideration
before the Court were: (i) whether omission to frame a
B ·charge or any error or irregularity in the charge is, by it- ,_
l

self, sufficient for quashing the conviction of the ac-
cused? and (ii) whether while acquitting the appellant of
_the charge under s.304-B IPC, the High Court could con-
vict him under s.498-A IPC.
c
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In view of the provisions of ss. 221, 222
and 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in cer-
tain situations an accused can be convicted of an offence
D with which he may not have been specifically charged -.,,
and that an error, omission or irregularity in the framing
of charge is, by itself' not sufficient for upsetting the con- >

viction. The appellate, confirming or revisional Court can
interfere in such matters only if it is shown that error,
E omission or irregularity in the framing of charge has
caused prejudice to the accused and failure of justice has
been occasioned. [para 14] [128,A-C]
Willie (William) Slaney vs. State of M.P. AIR 1956 SC
116; GurfJachan Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 623;
F Lakhjit Singh vs. State of Punjab 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 173;
Sangaraboina Sreenu vs. State of A.P. 1997 (5) SCC 348;
Oalbir Singh vs. State of UP. 2004 (5) sec 334 - relied on.
1.2 In the instant case, the specific allegation levelled
against the accused before the trial court was that they
G
had subjected the deceased to cruelty for or in connec- -\
tion with demand for dowry and she had died unnatural
death within seven years of her marriage. Thus, the ap-
pellant was not only aware of the charge of cruelty but he
got and availed the opportunity to defend himself with
H
;. :.:;:.;·
--....
DINESH SETH v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI 115
)

reference to that charge. Therefore, it cannot be said that A
omission of the trial court to frame specific charge under
Section 498A IPC had prejudiced the cause of the appel-
lant or that failure of justice had been occasioned on that
count. [para 15] .£128,C-D; E-F]_

T
2.1 The ingredient of cruelty is common to Sections B
3048 and 498A IPC, but the width and scope of two sec-
tions is different, inasmuch as Section 3048 deals with
cases of death as a result of cruelty or harassment within
seven years of marriage whereas Section 498A has a wider
spectrum and it covers all cases in which the wife is sub- c
jected to cruelty by her husband or relative of the hus-
band which may result in death by way of suicide or cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether men- .
tal or physical) or even harassment caused with a view to
coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet
unlawful demand for property or valuable security. [para D
19] [129,G-H; 130,A]
2.2 In the instant case, although the judgment under
challenge does not contain an elaborate discussion with
reference to the ingredients of Section 498A IPC, the pros- E
ecution, as is evident from the statements of PW-1, PW-6,
PW-7, PW-14 and PW-26,\ succeeded in proving that the
appellant had subjected the deceased to cruelty within
the meaning of Clause (a) of Explanation to Section 498A
IPC; and the mere fact that the statements of three of them
were not found convincing by the High Court for sustain- F
ing the conviction of the appellant and his other co-ac-
cused on the premise that all the ingredients of Section
3048 IPC have not been established, is not sufficient to
discard the prosecution case as ·a whole. Therefore, the
High Court did not commit any error in convicting the G
! appellant under Section 498A IPC. [para 22] [130,E-G;
131,D]
State of West Bengal vs. Ori/al Jaiswal & Another [1994
(1) SCC 73; and Satpal vs. State of Haryana 1998 (5) SCC
687 - referred to. H
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

Case Law R~forence: · · ·
. '
A
. _ , )\JR 19-S() SC 116 ... ·rel.ied on .[para. 7.] ·
· AIR 1957 SC 623 relied on· 1para,. S] ~

1994 Supp. (1) sec 173 relied on . [·pa.ra 101
B ·
_ .. -
.·1997 (5)
• • ' • > •
sec ~48 · · · ··,,
' •., - .. ' "' ~ .....
r:elied.. '
on :. ; .[para .11] ..
. - , ,.. • ,. I

. 2004. (5) ·SCC 334 . relied on , . fpa.ra 12]" .
• [1994 (1) sc·c 13 · referred :to. [para··23] · · ·
'. ·.. -
•,
•' - .- ·. • '-.:- " I

. _1998 (~)sec 687. referred to .. [para 23] : ..:
c
. 'CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: CriminaiAppeal.
No. 1239 ·of 2003· ·.. · ' ~· .." ·. ' '·
. ' .
. ·From the-final Judgment and Order·dated 2.5,2003 of-the:
High Court of Delhi at.New Delhi in CrL Appeal No. 667of'2002
D ' ' . ~ ' ' ; .. ' ·- . .' - . . .. . ~) : : ~
· K.T.S. Tulsi and P.O. Sharma for the Appellant. " · . · ...
P.P. Malhotra, Asha .G. Nair and Anil Katiyar for. the Re-
spoodents.' . . .. , ·. . .· ·. . .

E. T~e Judgment of ~he C~urt wa8; deliv~~ed ~~-· : .
$.S. SINGHVI, J .. 1. _This appeal is dir,ected against the ·
judgment pJ Delhi ·High Court whereby the appellant: was ac-
quit.ted of the-.9harge under .Section .3048 ~ndian penal Code·.
(forshort 'IPC') but was convicted under Section498A IPCar:id
F sentenced to three years~ rigorous imprisonment.· . . · ·

··-'.I"/•
. ·,.• ""> .: • . '.' .... ,c.

·. (i)'. •T:he appellant was married to· Rama on 2.12.1984'.'-
She died on 22.11.-1-986. On receipt of ari anonymous···
G
· · '.call/information th.at son of Kuldeep 'Seth· (the'
.. ·appellanrherein) has murdered his wife in his h!;>U'se.
situated at Gali No.8, Multani Dhanda, Paharganj.
S~ri.C.L. Jatav, Sub-Inspector of Police visited the
spot and found the dead body o.f Rama in a re.om.on
the second floor of the house. He alsG> found one
H
DINESH SETH v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI 117
) [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

piece of printed cloth (chunni) near the dead body A
and another piece which was tied with the ceiling
fan. Shri Naresh Tandon, brother-in-law of the deceased
who was present at the site told Shri Jatav that the
deceased had been subjected to harassment and
torture by her husband and in-laws. The Sub-Divisional B
7 Magistrate recorded the statement of Smt. Raj Rani
---i
Mehra (mother of the deceased), who had also reached
the house of the appellant and on that basis a case
was registered under Sections 304B/306/498A read
with Section 34 IPC. On the next day, Dr. Bharat Singh c
(PW-21) conducted post mortem. He found the following
injuries on the body of the deceased:-

1. One ligature mark around the neck placed above the
thyroid cartilage which was present all around the
neck. The width of the ligature was %" all along except D
near the right side of the ear where it was irregular
and was wider upto 1". Base was depressed. Skin
was abraded. Colour was light brown.

2. One lenier abrasion was present on the right knee
E
joint size two and half inches x two and ten inches.

Dr. Bharat Singh opined that the cause of death was
asphyxia caused due to hanging.

(ii) The police submitted challan under Sections 3048/
306/498A read with Section 34 IPC against the F
appellant, his brothers Suresh Seth and Naresh Seth
and mother Janak Seth. The learned Additional
Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 304B
read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution examined
I
as many as 26 witnesses including the mother of the G
1- deceased, Smt. Raj Rani Mehra (PW-7), her sisters
and brother, Smt. Radha Mehra (PW-1), Ms. Chitra
Mehra (PW-6) and Chaman Mehra (PW-26), two
neighbours, namely Rajesh (PW-19) and Amit Grover
(PW-24), Investigating Officer C.L. Jatav (PW-20) H
118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.
(

A and Dr. Bharat Singh (PW--21 ). In their statements
under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure (for
short 'the Code'), all the accused denied their
involvement in the death of Rama. They also denied
the allegation of having subjected the deceased to
B harassment and torture for dowry. ~
1
(iii) The trial court convicted all the accused under Section
3048 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them
to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal,
the High Court held that charge under Section 3048
c IPC is not made out and acquitted all the accused.
However, the appellant was found guilty under
Section 498A IPC and sentenced to three years'
rigorous imprisonment.
3. Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, senior counsel appearing for the ap- .,....
D
pellant, assailed the impugned judgment on tw_9 coul)ts. Hear-
gued that the appellant's conviction under Section 498A IPC is
liable to be set aside because he was tried for. an offence un-
der Section 3048 read with 34 IPC and not under Section 498A
IPC. Learned senior counsel submitted that in the absence of a
E specific charge under Section 498A IPC, the High Court could
not have convicted the appellant under that section because he
did not get opportunity to defend himself. Shri Tulsi further· ar-
gued that after having discarded the testimony of PW-1, PW-6
and PW-7 on the issue of harassment, cruelty and demand of
F dowry and acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section
3048 IPC, the High Court could not have relied upon the same
evidence for the purpose.of convicting him under Section 498A
IPC. In support of his arguments, Shri Tulsi referred to the judg-
ments of this Court in State of West Bengal vs. Ori/a/ Jaiswal &
G Another [1994 (1) SCC 73],Himachal Pradesh Admn. vs. Shri -\
Om Prakash [1972 (2) SCR 765], Ramakant Rai vs. Madan
Rai & Others [JT 2003 (Supp.2) SC 344], Gokaraju
Venkatanarasa Raju vs. State ofA.P [1993 Supp.(4) SCC 191]
and Shivanand Mallappa Kot! vs. Sfate of Karnataka [2007
H (8) Scale 408]. Learned senior counsel then submitted that th,
i
DINESH SETH v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI 119
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

) judgments of this Court in Pyare Lal vs. State of Haryana (1997 A
(11) SCC 552] and Satpal vs. State of Haryana (1998 (5) SCC
687] on which reliance has been placed by the High Court for
convicting the appellant under Section 498A IPC are clearly dis-
tinguishable because in neither of those cases question simi-
lar to the one arising in this appeal was considered. B
4. Shri P.P. Malhotra, senior counsel representing the
-T
. State relied upon the provisions of Sections 221, 222 and 464
of the Code and argued that omission to frame specific charge
under Section 498A IPC cannot be made a ground for acquittal
of the appellant because absence of charge under that section c
did not prejudice his defence and no failure of justice was oc-
casioned. Shri Malhotra submitted that the evidence produced
by the prosecution was sufficient to prove that the appellant had
subjected the deceased to cruelty and the High Court did not
commit any error by convicting him under Section 498A IPC. D
5. We have considered the respective submissions. For
....,
deciding whether the High Court committed an illegality by con-
victing the appellant under Section 498A IPC, it will be useful to
notice the provisions of Sections 221, 222 and 464 of the Code.
The same read as under:- E

221. Where it is doubtful what offence has been
committed. (1) If a single act or series of acts is of such
a nature that it is doubtful which of several offences the
facts which can be proved will constitute, the accused F
may be charged with having committed all or any of such
4 offences, and any number of such charges may be tried
at once; or he may be charged in the alternative with having
committed some one of the said offences.

(2) If in such a case the accused is charged with one G
offence, and it appears in evidence that he committed a
• different offence for which he might have been charged
I
under the provisions of sub-section (1 ); he may be
convicted of the offence which he is shown to have
..,
.~
committed, although he was not charged with it. H
120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

L
A Illustrations (a) A is accused of an act which may amount
to theft, or receiving stolen property, or criminal breach of
trust or cheating. He may be charged with theft, receiving
stolen property, criminal breach of trust and cheating, or he
may be charged with having committed theft, or receiving
B stolen property, or criminal breach of trust or cheating.
(b) In the case mentioned, A is only charged with theft. It
appears that he committed the offence of criminal breach
of trust, or that of receiving stolen goods. He may be
convicted of.criminal breach of trust qr of receiving stolen
c goods (as the case may be}, though he was not charged
yvith such offence.
' , . . I

· (c) A states, on oath before the Magistrate th~t he s_aw. B
hit C with a club. ·Before the Sessions Court A states ·On
• • • • < • • \

oath that 8 never hit. C. A may b~ charged in the alternatiye
D
. and conviCted of intentionally giving false evidence,
although it cannot to be proved which of these contradictory
statements was false.
222. When offence proved.included in offence charged.
E
(1) When a person is charged with an offence consisting
of several particulars, a combination of some only of which
constitutes a complete ,minor offence, and such
combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are
riot proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence
F though he was not charged with it.
(2) When a person is charged with an offence and facts are
proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted
of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it
G (3) When a person is charged with an offence, he may be
convicted of an attempt to commit such offence although
the attempt is not separately charged.
(4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to· authorise a
conviction of any minor offence where the conditions
H
DINESH SETH v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI 121
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

requisite for the initiation -of proceedings in respect of that A
)
minor offence have not been satisfied.
Illustrations (a) A is charged, under section 407 of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860) with criminal breach of trust in
respect of property entrusted to him as a carrier. It appears,
that he did'commit crimina.1 breach of trust under section 8
406 of that Code in respect of the property, but that it was
not entrusted to him as a carrier. He may be convicted of
criminal breach of trust under the said section 406.
-\,
(b) A is charged under section 325 of the Indian Penal c
Code (45 of 1860), with causing grievous hurt. He proves
that he acted ·on grave and sudden provocation. He may
pe convicted under section 335 of that Code.
· 464. Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error
in, charge. (1) N.o finding, sentence or order by a Court of D
competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on
·the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of
any error, .o"mission or irregularity iri the charge induding
. any misjoinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the
· ' Court of appeal, confirmation or tevision, a failure of justice E
f
.· has in fact bee'n occasioned 'thereby.
. " ~ .~ . ' .

· (2) If the Court of ·appeal, confirmation or revision is of
op_inion that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned,
it may- (a) in the case of an omission to frame a charge,
order that a charge be framed and that the trial be F
recommended from the point immediately after the framing
·of the charge.

(b) in the case o(an error, omission or irregularity in the
· charge, direct a new trial to be had upon a charge framed G
in whatever,manner it-thinks fit:
~ Provided that if the. Court is of opinion that the facts of the
case are such that no valid charge could be preferred
against the accused in respect of the facts proved, it sh~ll
quash the conviction. H
122 SUPREME COURT HEPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A 6. A reading of the plain language of Section 221 (1) and
(2) shows that if a single act or series of acts constitute several
\
J
offences and the prosecution is not certain about the particular
offence then the accused can be charged with the allegation of r
having committed all, some or any of the offences. In such a t:'
case the accused can be convicted of the offence with which •...-
B
he may not have been specifically charged but evidence pro-
- duced by the prosecution proves that such an offence has, in
fact, been committed. Section 222(1) lays down that when a l
person is charged with an offence consisting of several par-
;i

c ticulars and combination of only some of the particulars consti-
tuting a minor offence is proved then he can be convicted of the
minor offence with which he may not have been charged. Sec~
tion 222(2) lays down that when a person is charged with an
offence but the facts proved constitute a minor offence then he
can be convicted of the minor offence despite the fact that he
D
may not have been charged with that offence. Sub-section (3)
of Section 222 lays down that a person charged with an of-
fence, can be convicted of an attempt to commit such offence ..,. {
even though a separate charge may not have been framed on
that account. Section 464 lays down that any error, omission or
E irregularity in the framing of charge including any misjoinder of
charges, will not invalidate a finding, sentence or order by a
court of competent jurisdiction unless the higher court comes to
a conclusion that failure of justice has been occasioned. Sub-
section (2) of Section 464 specifies the modes which can be ,._
F adopted by the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, if such
court is of the opinion that a failure of the justice has been occa-
I

,
}c

~· )-
sioned on account of non framing of charge or any error, omis- I
sion or irregularity in the framing of charge.
7. The question whether omission to frame a charge or any
G
error or irregularity in the charge, is by itself, sufficient for quashing
the conviction of the accused was considered in Willie (William) ~
I
Slaney vs. State of MP [AIR 1956 SC 116]. After examining the ~ '
issue in detail, the Constitution Bench of this Court observed:-

H "Before we proceed to set out our answer and examine

t
DINESH SETH v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI 123
[q.s. SINGHVI, J.]
.. the provisions of the Code, we will pause to observe that the A
Code is a code of procedure and, like all procedural laws,
is designed to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate
them by the introduction of endless technicalities. The object
of the Code is to ensure that an accused person gets a full
and fair trial along certain well-established and well- B
understood lines that accord with our notions of natural justice.
f If he does, if he is tried by a competent court, if he is told
and clearly understands the nature of the offence for which
he is being tried, if the case against him is fully and fairly
explained to him and he is afforded a full and fair c
opportunity of defending himself, then, provided there is
'substantial' compliance with the outward forms of the law,
mere mistakes in procedure, mere inconsequential errors
and omissions in the trial are regarded as venal by the
Code and the trial is not vitiated unless the accused can D
show substantial prejudice. That, broadly speaking, is the
.,
. basic principle on which the Code is based .
* Now here, as in all procedural laws, certain things are
regarded as vital. Disregard of a provision of that nature
is fatal to the trial and at once invalidates the conviction. E
Others are not vital and whatever the irregularity they can
be cured; and in that event the conviction must stand unless
the Court is satisfied that there was prejudice. Some of
these matters are dealt with by the Code and wherever
that is the case full effect must be given to its provisions." F
'
"' 8. The Constitution Bench then referred to the provisions
of Sections 225, 232, 535 and 537 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1898, which are analogous to Section 215, 464 and
465 of the Code and held:
G
"Now, as we have said, Sections 225, 232, 535 and 537(a)
'f between them, cover every conceivable type of error and
irregularity referable to a charge that can possibly arise,
ranging from cases in which there is a conviction with no
charge at all from start to finish down to cases in which H
124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.
-:-

A there is a charge but yvith errors, irregularities and omissions
...
in it. The Code is emphatic that 'whatever' the irregularity
it is not to be regarded as fatal unless there is prejudice.
It is the substance that we must seek. Courts have to
administer justice and justice includes the punishment of
B guilt just as much as the protection of innocence. Neither
can be done if the shadow is mistaken for the substance ).
and the goal is lost in a labyrinth of unsubstantial
technicaliti~s. Broad vision is required, a nice balancing r-
of the rights of the State and the protection of society in
c general against protection from harassment to the
individual and the risks of unjust conviction.
..
Every reasonable presumption must be made in favour of
an accused person; he must be given the benefit of every
reasonable doubt. The same broad princip:es of justice
D
and fair play must be brought to bear when determining a
matter of prejudice as in adjudging guilt. But when all is y
.
l
said and done what we are concerned to see is whether "':k '
~
the accused had a fair trial, whether he knew what he was ~
being tried for, whether the main facts sought to be
E e$tablished against him were explained to him fairly and
clearly and whether he was given a full and fair chance to
defend himself.
~

If all these elements are there and no prejudice is shown
F the conviction must stand whatever the irregularities
whether traceable to the charge or to a want of one." ,.;ce
(

9. In Gurbachan Singh vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1957 SC
623], a three Judges' Bench considered the question of preju-
dice and observed: l-
G }.
"In judging a question of prejudice, as of guilt, coarts must
act with a broad vision and look to the substance and not ~
to technicalities, and their main concern should be to see
whether the accused had a fair trial, whether he knew
what he was being tried for, whether the main facts sought ~

H ~
f•.1
r
..
f('
DINESH SETH v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI 125
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
_,,.
to be established against him were explained to him fairly A
and clearly and whether he was given a full and fair chance
to defend himself."
10. In Lakhjit Singh vs. State of Punjab [1994 Supp. (1)
sec 173], the accused were charged and convicted of offence
under Section 302 IPC. The High Court upheld their conviction. A B
t- two Judges' Bench of this Court held that charge under Section
"" 302 IPC is not established but convicted the appellants under
~
Section 306 IPC. While rejecting the argument that in the ab-
sence of a specific charge under Section 306 IPC, the appel-
!ants cannot be .convicted under that section, the Court observed:- c
"The learned counsel, however, submits that since the
charge was for the offence punishable under Section 302
Indian Penal Code, the accused were not put to notice to
meet a charge also made against them under Section
D
306 IPC and, therefore, they are prejudiced by not framing
.
;...
a charge under Section 306 Indian Penal Code and;
therefore, presumption under Section 113-A of Indian
Evidence Act cannot be drawn and consequently a
conviction under Section 306 cannot be awarded. We are
unable to agree. The facts and circumstances of the case E
have been put forward against the accused under Section
313 CrPC and when there was a demand for dowry it
cannot be said that the accused are prejudiced because
the cross-examination of the witnesses, as well as the
answers given under Section 313 CrPC would show that F
_...,
they had enough of notice of the allegations which attract
Section 306 Indian Penal Code also."
11. In Sangaraboina Sreenu vs. State of A.P [1997 (5)
SCC 348], another Bench of two Judges' expressed a contrary
G
view. The facts of that case were that the accused was con-
-¥ victed by the trial court under Section 302 IPC. The High Court
converted the conviction to one under Section 306 IPC. While
reversing the judgment of the High Court, this Court held:

"This appeal must succeed for the simple reason that H
126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

iii<.
A 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
CrPC entitles a court to convict a person of an offence t-
B which is minor in comparison to the one for which he is
tried but Section 306 IPC cannot be said to be a minor
offence in relation to an offence under Section 302 IPC
:l
within the meaning of Section 222 CrPC for the two )..-
offences are of distinct and different categories. While the J
';
c basic constituent of an offence under Section 302 IPC is "\.-
homicidal death, those of Section 306 IPC are suicidal
death and abetment thereof."
12. In view of the apparently conflicting judgments of the
coordinate Benches, the issue was referred to a larger Bench.
D In Dalbir Singh vs. State of UP (2004 (5) SCC 334], a three
Judges' Bench considered the provisions of Section 222 and 'f
464 of the Code and observed:- ~,~

"Sub-section (1) of Section 222 lays down that when a
person is charged with an offence consisting of several
E particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes
a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved,
but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be
. convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged
with it. Sub-section (2) of the same section lays down that
F when a person is charged with an offence and facts are ,)-
proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be
convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged
with it. Section 222 CrPC is in the nature of a general
provision which empowers the court to convict for a minor
G offence even though charge has been framed for a major
offence: Illustrations (a) and (b) to the said section also .J:..
make the position clear. However, there is a separate
chapter in the Code of Criminal Procedure, namely,
. Chapter XXXV which deals with irregular proceedings
H and their effect. This chapter enumerates various kinds of
DINESH SETH v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI 127
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
~
irregularities which have the effect of either vitiating or not A
vitiating the proceedings. Section 464 of the Code deals
with the effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or
error in, charge. Sub-section (1) of this section provides
that no finding, sentence or order by a court of competent
jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground B
that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error,
omission or irregularity in the charge including any
misjoinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the court
of appeal, confirmation or revision; a failure of justice has
in fact been occasioned thereby. This clearly shows that c
any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including
any misjoinder of charges shall not result in invalidating
the conviction or order of a competent court unless the
appellate or revisional court comes to the conclusion that
a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby."
D
13. The three Judges' Bench then referred to the earlier
·y " judgments in Willie (William) Slaney vs. State of M.P (supra},
Gurbachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra) and observed:-
"There is a catena of decisions of this Court on the same
lines and it is not necessary to burden this judgment by E
making reference to each one of them. Therefore, in view
of Section 464 CrPC, it is possible for the appellate or
revisional court to convict an accused for an offence for
which no charge was framed unless the court is of the
opinion that a failure of justice would in fact occasion. In F
-~
order to judge whether a failure of justice has been
occasioned, it will be relevant to examine whether the
accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence
for which he is being convicted and whether the main
facts sought to be established against him were explained G
to him clearly and whether he got a fair chance to defend
.).
himself. We are, therefore, of the opinion that
Sangaraboina Sreenu was not corr~ctly decided as it
purport$ to lay down as a principle of law that where the
accused is charged under Section 302 IPC, he cannot be H
128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

...
A convicted for the offence under Section 306 IPC."
14. The ratio of the above noted judgments is that in cer-
tain situations an accused can be convicted of an offence with
which he may not have been specifically charged and that an
error, omission or irregularity in the framing of charge is, by it-
8 self not sufficient for upsetting the conviction. The appellate',
confirming or revisional Court can interfere in such matters only ~
if it is shown that error, omission or irregularity in the framing of
charge has caused prejudice to the accused and failure of jus-
tice has been occasioned.
c
15. Reverting to. the facts of this case, we find that the ap-
pellant and his co-accused were charged under Section 3048
IPC. The specific allegation.levelled against them was that they
had subjected the deceased to cruelty for or in connection with
demand for dowry and she had died unnatural death within seven
D
years of her marriage. Thus, the appellant knew that he was to
defend himself against the allegation of cruelty. The cross-ex- 'I

amination of prosecution witnesses unmistakably shows that the '*
defense had made concerted effort to discredit the testimony of
mother, sisters and brother of the deceased in the context of alle-
E
gation of cruelty. Not only this in his statement under Section 313
of the Code, the appellant denied the allegation that he had sub-
jected his wife to cruelty. It is thus evident that the appellant was
not only aware of the charge of cruelty but he got and availed the
opportunity to defend himself with reference to that charge. There-
F fore, it is not possible to accept the submission of Shri Tulsi that
,)-
omission of the trial court to frame specific charge under Section
498A IPC had prejudiced the cause of his client or that failure of
justice ,had been occasioned on that count.
16. The next point which requires consideration is whether
G
after discarding the testimony of PW-1, PW-6 and PW-7 and
X-
acquitting the appellant of the charge under Section 3048 IPC,
the High Court could convict him under Section 498A IPC.
17. Section 498A was added to the IPC by amending Act
H No.46 of 1983 in the backdrop of growing menace of dowry
' DINESH SETH v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI 129
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
A
related cases in which the women were subjected to cruelty A
and harassment and were forced to commit suicide. This sec-
tion lays down that if the husban,d or his relative subjects a
woman to cruelty, then he/she is liable to be punished with im-
prisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall
also be liable to fine. Explanation appended to this section de- B
fines the term 'cruelty' to mean any willful conduct which is of
f.
such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide
or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the woman; or harassment of the woman
where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any c
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any prop-
erty or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any
person related to her to meet such demand.
18. After three years, Section 3048 was inserted by
amending Act No.43of1986 to deal with cases involving dowry D
y"
deaths occurring within seven years of marriage. Sub-section
....
- (1) of Section 3048 IPC lays down that where the death of a
woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs.other-
wise than under normal circumstances within seven years of
her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she E
was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any
relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand
for dowry, such death shall be called 'dowry death', and such
husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
By virtue of explanation appearing below sub-section (1 ), the F
...... word 'dowry' used therein carries the same meaning as is con-
tained in Section 2 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
19. The ingredient of cruelty is common to Sections 3048
and 498A IPC, but the width and scope of two sections is differ-
ent, inasmuch as Section 3048 deals with cases of death as a G
. -\
~
result of cruelty or harassment within seven years of marriage,
Section 498A has a wider spectrum and it covers all cases in
which the wife is subjected to cruelty by her husband or relative
of the husband which may result in death by way of suicide or
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether H
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 12 S.C.R.
,
)

~

A mental or physical) or even harassment caused with a view to
coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet unlawful
demand for property or valuable security.
20. In order to bring home charge under Section 3048
IPC, the prosecution is required to establish that the death of
B the woman has been caused by burns or bodily injury or other-
wise than under normal circumstances within seven years of ~
her marriage and soon before her death, the woman is sub-
jected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relative.
However, for the purpose of conviction under Section 498A IPC,
c it is sufficient to prove that the woman was subjected to cruelty,
as elucidated in the explanation appearing. below substantive
part of the section, by her husband or his relative.
21. A reading of the impugned judgment shows that after
recording a finding that there was no evidence to prove that the
D
deceased was treated with cruelty or harassment in connec-
;;
tion with demand of dowry soon before her death, the High Court
?'
referred to the judgments of this Court in Pyare Lal vs. State of
Haryana (supra) and Satpal vs. State of Haryana (supra) and
held that evidence on record clearly makes out an offence un-
E der Section 498A IPC against the appellant.

22. Although the judgment under challenge does not con-
tain an elaborate discussion with reference to the ingredients
of Section 498A IPC, having carefully gone through the state-
F ments of PW-1, PW-6, PW-7, PW-14 and PW-26, we are con-
vinced that the prosecution succeeded in proving that the ap- A-
pellant had subjected the deceased to cruelty within the mean-
ing of clause (a) of explanation appearing below Section 498A
IPC and the mere fact that the statements of three of them were
not found convincing by the High Court for sustaining the con-
G
viction of the appellant and his other co-accused on the premise i!"'
_.:(.
that all the ingredients of Section 3048 IPC have not been es-
tablished is not sufficient to discard the prosecution case as a
whole. PW-1, PW-6 (both sisters), PW-7 (mother) and PW-26
(brother) have categorically deposed that immediately after
H (
DINESH SETH v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI 131
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
/ ..
marriage the deceased was given beating by the appellant, his A
brothers and was subjected to harassment and taunting by
mother-in-law and sister-in-law for being dark complexioned and
illiterate/not fluent in English. Their statements also show that
the appellant had hit the deceased with a brick resulting in wound
on her head which had to be stitched. On the date of death B
also, the deceased was subjected to physical torture and ha-
·•
..
rassment. Both the sisters narrated that when they met the de-
ceased, she was weeping and her eyes were swollen. Their
testimony has been substantially ?Upported by PW-14 Rakesh
Malhotra. He too stated that the deceased was subjected to· c
beating by her husband and she had suffered injury on her head.
This part of the prosecution case has not been disbelieved by
the High Court which found discrepancy only on the issue of
demand of dowry. The beating given to the deceased and ha-
rassment to which she was subjected had direct bearing on her
D
committing suicide. Therefore, we are convinced that the High
... Court did not commit any error in convicting the appellant under
v
Section 498A IPC.
23. The judgments on which Shri Tulsi has placed reliance
do not support the cause of the appellant. Rather, the judgment E
in State of West Bengal vs. Ori/al Jaiswal & Another (supra)
supports the conclusion that an offence under Section 498A
IPC is made out if the woman is subjected to physical assault,
humiliation, harassment and mental torture. In Satpal vs. State
of Haryana (supra}, this Court held that even though the pros- F
......, ecution evidence was not sufficient to establish charge under
Section 304 or 306 IPC, conviction under Section 498A IPC
can be upheld because the deceased was treated with cruelty
by the appellant.
24. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant G
who is on bail, shall be arrested for serving out the remaining
sentence.

R.P. Appeal dismissed.

H