Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.656 OF 2005
Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi … Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. … Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. Fine distinctions of law, if discerning, should normally be
recognized and permitted to operate in their respective fields.
With the development of criminal jurisprudence, the law has
recognized the concept of cognate charges besides alternative
charges. The differentiation between the offences from the
same family in contradistinction to the offences falling in
different categories have persuaded the courts to apply the
principle of ‘cognate offences’ and punish the offender of a less
grave offence because the offence of greater gravity has not
2
been proved beyond reasonable doubt. This principle is to be
applied keeping in view the facts and circumstances of a given
case and notwithstanding the fact that no charge for such less
grave offence had been framed against the offender. In the
case in hand, we are concerned with a similar question which
arises from the following facts:
All the five accused, namely, Rafiq Ahmad, Ahsan,
Imamuddin, Arun Kumar and Yashwant Singh, according to
th
the prosecution, in the intervening night of 30 September,
st
1977 and 1 October, 1977 committed dacoity in Ambassador
Car No.UPS 7293 belonging to Rafiq Ahmad. While the car
was going on the pucca road from Nehtaur to Dhampur within
the jurisdiction of thana Nehtaur, the accused had committed
the murder of Jagdish Prasad @ Jagdish Chandra @ Jagdish
Babu and thereafter thrown his body in a sugarcane field of
one Ikrar Ahmad situated in Village Kashmiri, thana Nehtaur
with the intention of screening themselves from punishment
for committing any offence. Shri Krishna Garg, uncle of the
deceased was carrying on the wholesale business of sugar,
Khandsari , flour, food grains etc. under the name of M/s.
3
Badri Prasad Sunder Lal in Mohalla Bari Mandi, Dhampur
(Bijnor). This firm had branches in the name of ‘Garg
Brothers’. The firm used to sell the above products on credit
to the customers at Dhampur, Nagina, Sherkot, Sheohara,
Haldaur and Nehtaur and the deceased, Jagdish Prasad, used
to go to Nehtaur every Friday to realize money from them. On
th
Friday, 30 September, 1977, also he left for Nehtaur to collect
money. Ordinarily, he used to return home between 9.00 p.m.
and 10.00 p.m. with collections roughly upto ` 10,000/-.
Though, Jagdish Prasad, on that day also had collected more
than ` 8,000/- from the customers, but he did not return
home that night. The next morning, Shri Krishna Garg sent
his Munim, Ramesh Chandra to Nehtaur to enquire about
Jagdish Prasad. The Munim returned and disclosed to Shri
Krishna Garg the above facts. After arrival of the Munim, Shri
Krishna Garg left Dhampur for Nehtaur along with Pyare Lal,
Surendra Kumar, Har Kishan and Kamlesh to enquire about
Jagdish Prasad. From the enquiries, it came to light that at
about 8.00 p.m., the deceased Jagdish Prasad had occupied a
taxi, in which some persons were already sitting, at the Agency
4
Chauraha, Nehtaur. The matter was reported and after
st
making an entry in the GD on 1 October, 1977 at 2.30 p.m.,
SI K.L. Verma started investigation and interrogated a number
of persons including Shri Krishna Garg and Pyare Lal.
Thereafter, a case was registered under Section 364 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC). On 2.10.1977, the investigation was
taken up by Station Officer (S.O.) Raj Pal Yadav and both Mr.
Verma and Mr. Yadav left the police station together for
investigation and reached P.S. Dhampur. At about 9.00 pm,
accused Rafiq Ahmad was arrested by the police along with his
taxi No.UPS 7293. His arrest led to recovery of the taxi which
was made in presence of Pyare Lal and Surendra Kumar.
During the course of the investigation, the accused Rafiq
Ahmad also made a confessional statement before the
investigating officer in presence of Surendra Kumar and Pyare
Lal that the dead body of the deceased was lying in the
sugarcane fields near village Kashmiri. The body of the
deceased was, thus, recovered and identified by Pyare Lal. SI
K.L Verma (PW9) prepared the inquest report and the body
was subjected to post mortem by Dr. R.B. Saxena (PW8), the
5
Medical Officer.
rd
On 3 October, 1977, the accused Ahsan and his brother
Imamuddin were arrested with the help of Zamal Ahmad @
Khan Zamaloo and Sattar. A gold ring was recovered from the
possession of Ahsan. These arrests were effected at about
9.00 pm. Similarly, the accused Yashwant Singh was arrested
nd
by the police from the railway platform at 1.00 am on 2
October, 1977.
We may refer to the post-mortem report and the ante-
mortem injuries found by Dr. Saxena (PW8) on the body of the
deceased which are as follows :
“1. Incised wound with chopping of left
ear vertically oblique with ½ part of
ear missing.
2. Incised wound oblique from above
down wards below left side angle of
jaw to upper neck 1/1/4”X¾”X¼”.
3. Incised wound 6”X1”X bone deep at
front of neck just above Adam’s
cartilage.
4. Abrasion ¼” X ¼” on back of both
shoulders.
6
5. Abrasion 1/8” X ¼” on back of right
elbow joint.
6. Abrasion ¼” X ¼” on outer side and
back of left elbow.
In the opinion of Dr. Saxena, death
was caused on account of
respiratory failure and hemorrhage
resulting from severing of trachea.”
The investigation was completed and the charge-sheet in
accordance with the provisions of Section 173 of the Criminal
Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) was filed before the court
of competent jurisdiction. The accused were committed to the
Court of Sessions and tried in accordance with law.
The learned Trial Court having considered the material
and the report submitted to it in terms of Section 173 of the
th
Cr.P.C. and vide order dated 11 September, 1979 framed the
following charge against all the accused, including the present
appellant, Rafiq Ahmad:
“ S.T. No.3/78
State VS. Rafiq Etc.
Charge
I Jawant singh III additionaL Sessions Judge,
Bijnour hereby charge you Rafiq, Ahsan,
Imamuddin, Arun Kumar and Yashwant Singh
accused as follows: -
7
That you in the night of 30-9-77 committed
dacoity in Taxi No. UPS 7273 while it was
running on Nehtaur to Dhampur road and that
in the commission of said dacoity murder was
committed by you of one jagdish prashad and
that you thereby committed an offence
punishable u/s 396 IPC and within my
cognizance And I hereby direct that you be
tried by me on the said charge.
Dt.11-9-79 Sd/- Judge
Charge read over and explained in Hindi to the
accused who pleaded not guilty.
Sd/- Judge
Sd/- Rafiq,
Sd/- Ahsan,
Sd/- Imamuddin,
Sd/- Arun Kumar
Sd/- Yashwant Singh”
This charge came to be amended by the learned Trial
Court and the amended charge read as under:
“ S.T. No. 3/78
State VS. Rafiq Etc.
Amended Charge
I Jaswant singh III additional Sessions Judge,
Bijnour hereby charge you Rafiq, Ahsan,
Imamuddin, Arun Kumar and Yashwant Singh
accused as follows: -
Firstly that you along with one another during
the night of 30-9-77 and 1-10-77 committed
dacoity in Ambassador Car No. UPS 7293
8
belonging to rafiq accused while it was going
from Nehtaur to Dhampur on the pucca road
within the circle of P.S. Nahtaur District
Bijnaur and that in the commission of the said
dacoity, murder of jagdish prashad was
committed by you and that you thereby
committed an offence punishable under
Section 396 IPC and within the cognizance of
this court.
Secondly – that you along with one another
during the night of 30-09-77 and 1-10-77 in
the area of village Kashmiri P.S. Nehtaur Dist.
Bijnore knowing or having reason to believe
that an offence U/s 396 IPC punishable with
death or imprisonment for life has been
committed did cause evidence of the said
offence to disappear by secreting the dead
body of jagdish prashad in the sugar cane field
of Ikrar Ahmad with the intention of screening
yourself from legal punishment and thereby
committed an offence punishable u/s 201 IPC
and with the cognizance of this court.
And I hereby direct that you be tried by this
court on the said charge
25-2-80 Sd/- Judge
Charge read over and explained in Hindi to the
accused who pleaded not guilty.
Sd/- Judge
Sd/- Rafiq,
Sd/- Ahsan,
9
Sd/- Imamuddin,
Sd/- Arun Kumar
Sd/- Yashwant Singh”
The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses to
prove its case. Besides the statement of these witnesses,
prosecution had also placed reliance on Exhibits Ka-1 to Ka-
23. Incriminating evidence against the accused which came
on record during the course of the trial was put to the accused
whose statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was
th
recorded by the Court on 20 February, 1981. It may be
stated here that in his statement, accused Rafiq Ahmad denied
his presence at the place of occurrence and stated that the
witnesses being the relatives of the deceased were deposing
against the appellant. The accused had also led defence and
examined two witnesses, namely, Naik Singh (DW1) and Shri
J.P. Singh (DW2) and placed number of documents on record.
th
The Trial Court, by a detailed judgment dated 17
August, 1981, came to the conclusion that Rafiq Ahmad was
guilty of charge under Sections 302 and 201 IPC under which
the accused was liable for conviction and punishment. The
10
Court further held that Ahsan was guilty of a charge under
Section 411 IPC but acquitted him and the three other
accused, namely, Imamuddin, Arun Kumar and Yashwant
Singh under Section 396 IPC by giving them benefit of doubt.
The Court awarded rigorous imprisonment for life to Rafiq
Ahmad under Section 302 IPC and seven years rigorous
imprisonment under Section 201 IPC. Both the sentences
were ordered to run concurrently. The Trial Court ordered
the accused Ahsan to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section
411, IPC and in default to undergo imprisonment for further
period of six months.
Accused Rafiq Ahmad, dissatisfied with the judgment of
the Trial Court, preferred an appeal before the High Court.
Ahsan also challenged his conviction and sentence. Both
these appeals were heard and disposed of by the High Court
by a common judgment. The appeal filed by Rafiq Ahmad was
dismissed. His conviction and sentence was maintained while
the appeal preferred by Ahsan was accepted and he was
acquitted even of the charge under Section 411 IPC.
11
Rafiq Ahmad, in the present appeal, has impugned the
judgment of the High Court.
2. The entire emphasis of the submissions made on behalf
of the appellant is primarily founded on determination of a
question of law, which, if answered in favour of the appellant,
according to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
would entitle the appellant to an order of acquittal. The
argument is that the appellant was charged for an offence
under Section 396 IPC and without reformulation/alteration of
the charge, the appellant has been convicted for an offence
under Section 302 IPC. This according to the learned counsel,
has deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity of defence and
has caused him serious prejudice. Section 302 IPC is a graver
offence than an offence punishable under Section 396 of the
IPC and as such the entire trial and conviction of the appellant
is vitiated in law.
3. It is also contended that the learned trial court as well as
the High Court have erred in fact and in law, have failed to
appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective and also that
12
there are serious contradictions between the statements of the
witnesses. It is also urged that this being a case of
circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove
the chain of events, pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
Therefore, the judgments of the courts below are liable to be
set aside.
4. On the contra, it is contended on behalf of the State that
despite the present case being a case of circumstantial
evidence, the prosecution has been able to establish its case
beyond any reasonable doubt. The appellant has suffered no
prejudice, whatsoever, because of his conviction under Section
302 of the IPC.
5. Before we proceed to examine the merit or otherwise of
the above rival contentions, it will be important for us to refer
to the relevant provisions of the IPC at this stage itself. The
relevant provisions read as under:-
“ 302.Punishment for murder.- Whoever
commits murder shall be punished with death,
or imprisonment for life, and shall also be
liable to fine.
13
396. Dacoity with murder.- If any one of five
or more persons, who are conjointly
committing dacoity, commits murder in so
committing dacoity, every one of those persons
shall be punished with death, or imprisonment
for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also
be liable to fine.”
6. As is evident from the amended charge reproduced
earlier, the appellant was charged with an offence under
Sections 396 and 201 of the IPC. It is not necessary for us to
examine the charge framed against the other co-accused as all
of them have been acquitted and the judgment of acquittal has
not been challenged before this Court.
7. Section 391 IPC explains the offence of ‘dacoity’. When
five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a
robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly
committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons
present and aiding such commission and attempt amount to
five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding,
is said to commit ‘dacoity’. Under Section 392 IPC, the offence
of ‘robbery’ simplicitor is punishable with rigorous
imprisonment which may extend to ten years or 14 years
14
depending upon the facts of a given case. Section 396 IPC
brings within its ambit a murder committed along with
‘dacoity’. In terms of this provision, if any one of the five or
more persons, who are conjointly committing dacoity, commits
murder in so committing dacoity, every one of those persons
shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life or
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten
years and shall also be liable to fine.
8. On a plain reading of these provisions, it is clear that to
constitute an offence of ‘dacoity’, robbery essentially should be
committed by five or more persons. Similarly, to constitute an
offence of ‘dacoity with murder’ any one of the five or more
persons should commit a murder while committing the
dacoity, then every one of such persons so committing,
attempting to commit or aiding, by fiction of law, would be
deemed to have committed the offence of murder and be liable
for punishment provided under these provisions depending
upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
15
9. Section 299 defines ‘culpable homicide’. Whoever causes
death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or
with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to
cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such
act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
Except the exceptions provided under Section 300 IPC,
culpable homicide is murder if the act by which death is
caused is done with the intention of causing death. The
intention to cause death is the primary distinguishing feature
between these two offences. It is a fine but clear line of
distinction.
10. In terms of Section 300 IPC, except in the cases stated in
that provision, culpable homicide is murder if the act by which
the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death
or in terms of any of the circumstances stated secondly,
thirdly and fourthly respectively. The law clearly marks a
distinction between culpable homicide amounting to murder
and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Another
distinction between Sections 302 and 396 is that under the
latter, wide discretion is vested in the courts in relation
16
awarding of punishment. The court, in exercise of its
jurisdiction and judicial discretion in consonance with the
established principles of law can award sentence of ten years
with fine or even award sentence of life imprisonment or
sentence of death, as the case may be while under Section
302, the court cannot, in its discretion, award sentence lesser
than life imprisonment.
11. The ingredients of both these offences, to some extent,
are also different inasmuch as to complete an offence of
‘dacoity’ under Section 396 IPC, five or more persons must
conjointly commit the robbery while under Section 302 of the
IPC even one person by himself can commit the offence of
murder. But, as already noticed, to attract the provisions of
Section 396, the offence of ‘dacoity’ must be coupled with
murder. In other words, the ingredients of Section 302
become an integral part of the offences punishable under
Section 396 of the IPC. Resultantly, the distinction with
regard to the number of persons involved in the commission of
the crime loses its significance as it is possible that the
offence of ‘dacoity’ may not be proved but still the offence of
17
murder could be established, like in the present case. Upon
reasonable analysis of the language of these provisions, it is
clear that the Court has to keep in mind the ingredients which
shall constitute a criminal offence within the meaning of the
penal section. This is not only essential in the case of the
offence charged with but even where there is comparative
study of different penal provisions as the accused may have
committed more than one offence or even offences of a graver
nature. He may finally be punished for a lesser offence or vice
versa, if the law so permits and the requisite ingredients are
satisfied.
12. So far the judicial pronouncements show a consistent
trend that wherever an accused is charged with a grave
offence, he can be punished for a less grave offence finally, if
the grave offence is not proved. For example, a person
charged with an offence under Section 302 of the IPC may
finally be convicted only for an offence under Section 304 Part
II where the prescribed punishment is lesser and the
consequences of conviction are less serious in comparison to a
conviction under Section 302. But even in those cases, the
18
Court has to be cautious while examining whether the
ingredients of the offences are independently satisfied. If the
ingredients even of a lesser offence are not satisfied then it
may be difficult in a given case for the court to convict the
person for an offence of a less grave nature . There can be
cases where it may not be possible at all to punish a person of
a less grave offence if its ingredients are completely different
and distinct from the grave offence. To deal with this aspect
illustratively, one could say that a person who is charged with
an offence under Section 326 may not be liable to be convicted
for an offence under Section 406 IPC because their ingredients
are entirely distinct, different and have to be established by
the prosecution on its own strength. In other words, the
accused has to be charged with a grave offence which would
take within its ambit and scope the ingredients of a less grave
offence. The evidence led by the prosecution for a grave
offence, thus, would cover an offence of a less grave nature.
But it is essential that the offence for which the Court
proposes to punish the accused, is established beyond
reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
19
13. A Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Willie
(William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1956 SC
116] dealt with a question as to whether omission to frame a
charge was a curable irregularity. In that case the accused
was charged for committing an offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC but the Court finally convicted him of an
offence punishable under Section 304, Part II. The Court,
while examining if the accused had been prejudiced in his
defence and the validity of his conviction, held as under:
“6. Before we proceed to set out our
answer and examine the provisions of the
Code, we will pause to observe that the
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-understood line that
accord with our notions of natural
justice. 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
opportunity of defending himself, then,
provided there is substantial compliance
with the outward forms of the law, mere
20
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 show substantial
prejudice. That, broadly speaking, is the
basic principle on which the Code is
based.
7. 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. 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. The question
here is, does the Code deal with the
absence of a charge and irregularities in
it, and if so, into which of the two
categories does it place them ? But before
looking into the Code, we deem it
desirable to refer to certain decisions of
the Privy Council because much of the
judicial thinking in this country has been
moulded by their observations. In our
opinion, the general effect of those
decisions can be summarised as follows.
XXX XXX XXX
17. It is possible (though we need not so
decide in this case) that the recent
amendment to section 537 in the Code of
Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act
XXVI of 1955, where mis-joinder of
21
charges has been placed in the curable
category, will set at rest the controversy
that has raged around the true meaning
of N. A. Subramania Iyer v. King-Emperor .
In any case, our opinion is that the real
object of the Code is to leave these
matters to the discretion and vigilance of
the courts. Slightly to alter the language
of the Privy Council in Babulal
Choukhani v. The King-Emperor [1938]
L.R. 65 IndAp 158, we would say -
"It must be hoped, and indeed
assumed, that magistrates and
judges will exercise their jurisdiction
fairly and honestly. Such is the
implied condition of the exercise of
judicial power. It they do not, or if
they go wrong in fact or in law, the
accused has prima facie a right of
recourse to the superior courts by
way of appeal or revision; and the
cases show how vigilant and
resolute the High Courts are in
seeing that the accused is not
prejudiced or embarrassed by
unsubstantial departures from the
Code and how closely and jealously
the Supreme Court guards the
position of the accused. These
safeguards may well have appeared
to the Legislature to be sufficient
when they enacted the remedial
provisions of the Code and have now
left them substantially unaltered in
the new Code recently introduced".
This, we feel, is the true intent and
purpose of section 537(a) which covers
every proceeding taken with jurisdiction
22
in the general phrase "or other
proceedings under this Code". It is for the
Court in all these cases to determine
whether there has been prejudice to the
accused; and in doing so to bear in mind
that some violations are so obviously
opposed to natural justice and the true
intendment of the Code that on the face
of them and without anything else they
must be struck down, while in other
cases a close examination of all the
circumstances will be called for in order
to discover whether the accused has been
prejudiced.
XXX XXX XXX
In adjudging the question of prejudice the
fact that the absence of a charge, or a
substantial mistake in it, is a serious
lacuna will naturally operate to the
benefit of the accused and if there is any
reasonable and substantial doubt about
whether he was, or was reasonably likely
to have been, misled in the
circumstances of any particular case, he
is as much entitled to the benefit of it
here as elsewhere; but if, on a careful
consideration of all the facts, prejudice,
or a reasonable and substantial
likelihood of it, is not disclosed the
conviction must stand; also it will always
be material to consider whether objection
to the nature of the charge, or a total
want of one, was taken at an early stage.
If it was not, and particularly where
the accused is defended by ‘AIR 1930 PC
57 (2) at p.58 (G)’, it may in a given case
be proper to conclude that the accused
23
was satisfied and knew just what he was
being tried for and knew what was being
alleged against him and wanted no
further particulars, provided it is always
borne in mind that "no serious defect in
the mode of conducting a criminal trial
can be justified or cured by the consent
of the advocate of the accused" ‘AIR 1927
PC 44 at pp.46-47 & 49 (F)’.
But these are matters of fact which
ill be special to each different case and no
conclusion on these questions of fact in
any one case can ever be regarded as a
precedent or a guide for a conclusion of
fact in another, because the facts can
never be alike in any two cases however
alike they may seem. There is no such
thing as a judicial precedent on facts
though counsel, and even judges, are
sometimes prone to argue and to act if
there were.”
14. The Court, while laying down the above law, significantly
noticed that the 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 with certain
well-established and well-understood canons of law that
accord with the notions of natural justice.
24
15. In the case of Iman Ali & Anr. v. State of Assam , [AIR
1968 SC 1464], the Court had the occasion to explain the
distinction between the scope, liability and punishment for an
offence under Section 396, as opposed to Section 302 IPC.
The Court noticed that the offence under Section 396 was no
less heinous than an offence under Section 302 though in the
latter case, it was obligatory on the part of the Court to record
reasons for not awarding death sentence. The Court while
sustaining the enhancement of punishment from sentence of
life imprisonment to sentence of death by the High Court on
the ground that there was a direct evidence to show that the
accused had committed the alleged murder, held as under:
“Learned counsel for the appellants, in
challenging the justification for the order
of enhancement of sentence by the High
Court, relied on the principle laid down
by this court in Dalip Singh v. State of
Punjab, 1954 SCR 145 at p.156 = (AIR
1953 SC 364 at pp. 367-368) which was
explained in the following words:-
“In a case of murder, the death
sentence should ordinarily be
imposed unless the trying Judge for
reasons which should normally be
recorded considers it proper to
award the lesser penalty. But the
25
discretion is his and if he gives
reasons on which a judicial mind
could properly be found, an
appellate court should not interfere.
The power to enhance a sentence
from transportation to death should
very rarely be exercised and only for
the strongest possible reasons. It is
not enough for an appellate court to
say, or think, that if left to itself it
would have awarded the greater
penalty because the discretion does
not belong to the appellate court but
to the trial Judge and the only
ground on which an appellate court
can interfere is that the discretion
has been improperly exercised, as
for example, where no reasons are
given and none can be inferred from
the circumstances of the case, or
where the facts are so gross that no
normal judicial mind would have
awarded the lesser penalty.”
It appears to us, however, that, in the
present case, this principle is of no
assistance to the appellants for
challenging the step taken by the High
Court. This court cautioned the appellate
court against interfering if the discretion
of the trying Judge is exercised for
reasons recorded by him and if it appears
from the reasons that he had exercised a
judicial mind in not awarding the
sentence of death. In the present case, as
mentioned by the High Court and as is
apparent from the judgment of the Court
of Session, the trial court awarded the
sentence of imprisonment for life without
26
giving any reasons at all for adopting that
course. It is true that the appellants were
not convicted in the present case for the
offence of murder simpliciter under
Section 302 IPC; but that, in our opinion,
is immaterial. The conviction of the
appellants under section 396 IPC, was
not based on constructive liability as
members of the gang of dacoits. There
was clear finding by the court of Session
which has been upheld by the High Court
that each of these appellants committed a
cold-blooded murder by shooting two
inmates of the house simply with the
object of facilitating commission of
dacoity by them. Those persons were shot
and killed even though they had not even
tried to put up any resistance. The
offence under Section 396 IPC, was
therefore, no less heinous than an offence
under Section 302 IPC. In these
circumstances, when the court of Session
gave no reason at all for not awarding the
sentence of death and for sentencing
them to imprisonment for life only, it
cannot be held that the High Court was
not justified in interfering with that order.
Learned counsel in this connection
refereed us to a decision of a Division
Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Lal
Singh v. Emperor A.I.R. 1938 Alld. 625,
where it was held :
"We do not consider that as a
general rule a sentence of death
should necessarily follow a
conviction under s. 396, I.P.C., and
this Section differs from s. 302,
I.P.C., in that respect. The rule is
27
under s. 302 , that a sentence of
death should follow unless reasons
are shown for giving a lesser
sentence. No such rule applies to s.
396, I.P.C."
Again, we do not think that the
learned Judges of the Allahabad High
Court intended to lay down that, even in
cases where a person is convicted for the
offence under s. 396, I.P.C., and there is
clear evidence that he himself had
committed a cold-blooded murder in
committing the dacoity, a sentence of
death should not follow. Clearly, the view
expressed was meant to apply to those
cases where there could be no definite
finding as to which person committed the
murder and all the members of the gang
are held constructively guilty of the
offence punishable under s. 396, I.P.C. A
principle enunciated for such a situation
cannot be applied to a case where there is
direct evidence that a particular accused
committed the murder himself, as is the
finding in the present case.”
17. With the passage of time more and more such cases
came up for consideration of this Court as well as the High
Courts. The development of law has not changed the basic
principles which have been stated in the judgments afore-
referred. Usually an offence of grave nature includes in itself
the essentials of a lesser but cognate offence. In other words,
there are classes of offences like offences against the human
28
body, offences against property and offences relating to
cheating, misappropriation, forgery etc. In the normal course
of events, the question of grave and less grave offences would
arise in relation to the offences falling in the same class and
normally may not be inter se the classes. It is expected of the
prosecution to collect all evidence in accordance with law to
ensure that the prosecution is able to establish the charge
with which the accused is charged, beyond reasonable doubt.
It is only in those cases, keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of a given case and if the court is of the view
that the grave offence has not been established on merits or
for a default of technical nature, it may still proceed to punish
the accused for an offence of a less grave nature and content.
18. In the case of Anil @ Raju Namdev Patil vs.
Administration of Daman & Diu and Anr. [2006 Suppl. (9) SCR
466], the Court had to deal with a situation where the
accused, a car driver had kidnapped a child of five years for
the purpose of demanding ransom and later killed the child.
The accused had been charged for an offence punishable
under Sections 364, 302 and 201 IPC, but was finally
29
convicted for an offence punishable under Section 364-A and
was awarded sentence of death. This Court held that there
was prejudice caused to the appellant and the sentence was
modified from death to rigorous imprisonment for life with
conviction under Section 364 IPC. The Court, besides
recording the above findings on the merits of the case noticed
the precedents in relation to non-framing of charge. The
Bench referred to various judgments of this Court in K. Prema
S. Rao and Anr. v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao and Ors. [(2003) 1 SCC
217], Kammari Brahmaiah and Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High
Court of A.P. [(1999) 2 SCC 522], Dalbir Singh v. State of U.P.
[(2004 5 SCC 334], Kamalanantha and Ors. v. State of T.N.
[(2005 5 SCC 194], Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab [(2006 1
SCC 463] and recapitulated the principles of law stated in
these judgments and stated the following precepts of law
which would govern such cases:
“The propositions of law which can be
culled out from the aforementioned
judgments are:
(i) The appellant should not
suffer any prejudice by reason
of misjoinder of charges.
30
(ii) A conviction for lesser offence
is permissible.
(iii) It should not result in failure of
justice.
(iv) If there is a substantial
compliance, misjoinder of
charges may not be fatal and
such misjoinder must be
arising out of mere misjoinder
to frame charges.
The ingredients for commission of offence
of Section 364 and 364-A are different.
Whereas the intention to kidnap in order
that he may be murdered or may be so
disposed of as to be put in danger as
murder satisfied the requirements of
Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, for
obtaining a conviction for commission of
an offence under Section 364-A thereof it
is necessary to prove that not only such
kidnapping or abetment has taken place
but thereafter the accused threatened to
cause death or hurt to such person or by
his conduct gives rise to a reasonable
apprehension that such person may be
put to death or hurt or causes hurt or
death to such person in order to compel
the government or any other person to do
or abstain from doing any act or to pay a
ransom.
It was, thus, obligatory on the part
of the learned Sessions Judge, Daman, to
frame a charge which would answer the
description of the offence envisaged
under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal
Code. It may be true that the kidnapping
31
was done with a view to get ransom but
the same should have been put to the
appellant while framing a charge. The
prejudice to the appellant is apparent as
the ingredients of a higher offence had
not been put to him while framing any
charge.
It is not a case unlike Kammari
Brahmaiah (supra) where the offence was
of a lesser gravity, as has been observed
by Shah, J.”
19. In light of the above principles, let us now examine the
meaning of ‘prejudice’. The expression has been defined in
Black’s Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition), as follows:
“ prejudice, 1. Damage or detriment to
one’s legal rights or claims. See
dismissal with prejudice, dismissal
without prejudice under DISMISSAL.
Legal prejudice. A condition that, if
shown by a party, will usu. defeat the
opposing party’s action: esp. a condition
that, if shown by the defendant, will
defeat a plaintiff’s motion to dismiss a
case without prejudice. The defendant
may show that dismissal will deprive the
defendant of a substantive property right
or preclude the defendant from raising a
defense that will be unavailable or
endangered in a second suit.
Undue prejudice. The harm resulting
from a fact-trier’s being exposed to
32
evidence that is persuasive but
inadmissible (such as evidence of prior
criminal conduct) or that so arouses the
emotions that calm and logical reasoning
is abandoned.
2. A preconceived judgment formed
without a factual basis; a strong bias”
20. When we speak of prejudice to an accused, it has to
be shown that the accused has suffered some disability or
detriment in the protections available to him under the Indian
criminal jurisprudence. It is also a settled canon of criminal
law that this has occasioned the accused with failure of
justice. One of the other cardinal principles of criminal justice
administration is that the courts should make a close
examination to ascertain whether there was really a failure of
justice or whether it is only a camouflage, as this expression is
perhaps too pliable. With the development of law, Indian
courts have accepted the following protections to and rights of
the accused during investigation and trial :
(a) The accused has the freedom to maintain silence
during investigation as well as before the Court. The
accused may choose to maintain silence or make
33
complete denial even when his statement under Section
313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is being
recorded, of course, the Court would be entitled to draw
inference, including adverse inference, as may be
permissible to it in accordance with law;
(b) Right to fair trial
(c) Presumption of innocence (not guilty)
(d) Prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt.
21. Prejudice to an accused or failure of justice, thus, has to
be examined with reference to these aspects. That alone,
probably, is the method to determine with some element of
certainty and discernment whether there has been actual
failure of justice. ‘Prejudice’ is incapable of being interpreted
in its generic sense and applied to criminal jurisprudence.
The plea of prejudice has to be in relation to investigation or
trial and not matters falling beyond their scope. Once the
accused is able to show that there is serious prejudice to
either of these aspects and that the same has defeated the
34
rights available to him under the criminal jurisprudence, then
the accused can seek benefit under the orders of the Court.
22. Right to fair trial, presumption of innocence until
pronouncement of guilt and the standards of proof, i.e., the
prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt are
the basic and crucial tenets of our criminal jurisprudence.
The Courts are required to examine both the contents of the
allegation of prejudice as well as its extent in relation to these
aspects of the case of the accused. It will neither be possible
nor appropriate to state such principle with exactitude as it
will always depend on the facts and circumstances of a given
case. Therefore, the Court has to ensure that the ends of
justice are met as that alone is the goal of criminal
adjudication. Thus, wherever a plea of prejudice is raised by
the accused, it must be examined with reference to the above
rights and safeguards, as it is the violation of these rights
alone that may result in weakening of the case of the
prosecution and benefit to the accused in accordance with
law.
35
During conduct of trial, framing of a charge is an
important function of the court. Sections 211 to 224 of
Chapter XVII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have
been devoted by the Legislature to the various facets of
framing of charge and other related matters thereto. Under
Section 211, the charge should state the offence with which
the accused is charged and should contain the other
particulars specified in that section. In terms of Section 214,
in every charge words used in describing an offence shall be
deemed to have been used in the sense attached to them
respectively by the law under which such offence is
punishable. Another significant provision is Section 215
which states that no error in stating either the offence or the
particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no
omission to state the offence or those particulars, shall be
regarded at any stage of the case as material unless the
accused was in fact misled by such error or omission, and it
has occasioned a failure of justice. Further, the court has
been vested with the power to alter the charge. There could be
trial of more than one offence together and there could even be
36
joint trial of the accused. We have referred to these provisions
primarily to indicate that the purpose of framing of a charge is
to put the accused at notice regarding the offence for which he
is being tried before the court of competent jurisdiction. For
want of requisite information of offence and details thereof, the
accused should not suffer prejudice or there should not be
failure of justice, as held by this Court in the case of
Shamnsaheb M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka [(2001) 2 SCC
577]. The requirements of putting the accused at notice and
there being a charge containing the requisite particulars, as
contemplated under Section 211, has to be read with reference
to Section 215 of the Code. Every omission would not vitiate
the trial. This Court has settled this position in the case of
Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1956
SC 116] wherein the Court held as under :
“ 36. Sections 222 to 224 deal with the
form of a charge and explain what a
charge should contain. Section 225 deals
with the effect of errors relating to a
charge. Sections 233 to 240 deal with the
joinder of charges. Sections 535 and 537
are in the Chapter that deals with
irregularities generally and these two
sections deal specifically with the charge
37
and make it clear that an omission to
frame a charge as well as irregularities,
errors and omission in a charge are all
irregularities that do not vitiate or
invalidate a conviction unless there is
prejudice.
37. But, apart from that, if we examine
the learned counsel's contention more
closely, the fallacy in his argument
becomes clear. Sections 237 and 238 deal
with cases in which there is a charge to
start with and then they go on to say that
in certain cases the trial can proceed
beyond the matter actually charged and a
conviction for an offence disclosed in the
evidence in that type of case will be good
despite the absence of a charge in respect
of it. But what are those cases? Only
those in which the additional charge or
charges could have been framed from the
start; and that is controlled by Sections
234, 235 and 239 which set out the rules
about joinder of charges and persons.”
Dinesh Seth v. State of NCT of Delhi [(2008) 14 SCC 94]
was a case where the accused was charged with an offence
under Section 304B read with Section 34 IPC but was finally
convicted for an offence under Section 498A. The plea of
prejudice, on the ground that no specific charge under Section
498A was framed and the Court, while referring to the facts
and circumstances of the case and the cross-examination of
38
the prosecution witnesses found that it was unmistakably
shown that the defence had made concerted efforts to discredit
the testimony of the alleging cruelty, was rejected and the
accused was punished for an offence under Section 498A.
This clearly demonstrates the principle that in all cases, non-
framing of charge or some defect in drafting of the charge per
se would not vitiate the trial itself. It will have to be examined
in the facts and circumstances of a given case. Of course, the
court has to keep in mind that the accused ‘must be’ and not
merely ‘may be’ guilty of an offence. The mental distance
between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague
conjectures from sure conclusions. { Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade
& Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1973 SC 2622]}.
23. Having stated the above, let us now examine what kind of
offences may fall in the same category except to the extent of
‘grave or less grave’. We have already noticed that a person
charged with a heinous or grave offence can be punished for a
less grave offence of cognate nature whose essentials are
satisfied with the evidence on record. Examples of this kind
have already been noticed by us like a charge being framed
39
under Section 302 IPC and the accused being punished under
Section 304, Part I or II, as the circumstances and facts of the
case may demand. Furthermore, a person who is charged
with an offence under Section 326 IPC can be finally convicted
for an offence of lesser gravity under Section 325 or 323 IPC, if
the facts of the case so establish. Alike or similar offences can
be termed as ‘cognate offences’. The word ‘cognate’ is a term
primarily used in civil jurisprudence particularly with
reference to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
where Section 3(c) has used this expression in relation to the
descendants of a class of heirs and normally the term is used
with reference to blood relations. Section 3(c) of the Hindu
Succession Act defines "cognate" as follows:
“one person is said to be a cognate of
another if the two are related by blood or
adoption but not wholly through males.”
24. The Encyclopedia Law Lexicon, explain the word ‘cognate’
in relation to civil law as follows:
“ Cognate. - According to Hindu Law it is
a class of heirs, descended or borrowed
from the same earlier form.
40
- It means blood relation including
female relation.
Word “cognate” literally means “akin in
nature”, Ram Briksh v. State, 1978 All
Cri C 253 ”
25. This expression has also been recognized and applied to
the criminal jurisprudence as well not only in the Indian
system but even in other parts of the world. Such offences
indicate the similarity, common essential features between the
offences and they primarily being based on differences of
degree have been understood to be ‘cognate offences’. Black’s
Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition) defines the expression
‘cognate offences’ as follows:
“ cognate offences . A lesser offence that
is related to the greater offense because it
shares several of the elements of the
greater offense and is of the same class or
category. For example, shoplifting is a
cognate offence of larceny because both
crimes require the element of taking
property with the intent to deprive the
rightful owner of that property.”
26. Therefore, where the offences are cognate offences with
commonality in their feature, duly supported by evidence on
41
record, the Courts can always exercise its power to punish the
accused for one or the other provided the accused does not
suffer any prejudice as afore-indicated.
27. We may now refer to certain cases where this Court had
the occasion to deal with such issues. Certain divergent views
were also expressed in relation to conversion of an offence
from a grave to a less grave offence. In the case of Lakhjit
Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 Suppl.(1) SCC (Crl.) 173], the
accused was charged with an offence under Section 302 IPC
and convicted and sentenced for the said offence, both by the
Trial Court as well as the High Court. In appeal, a Division
Bench of this Court considered whether the offence could be
converted and the appellant could be convicted for an offence
under Section 306 IPC. Having regard to the evidence
adduced by the prosecution and the answer of the accused to
the questions put to him under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the
Court was satisfied that the accused had fair notice of the
allegations to attract an offence under Section 306 IPC and as
such there was no denial of fair trial to the accused. Finally,
the Court convicted him of an offence under Section 306 IPC.
42
However, a different view was expressed in a subsequent
judgment by another Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Sanagaraboina Sreenu v. State of A.P. [(1997) 5 SCC 348 :
AIR 1957 SC 623]. In that case also the Court was dealing
with the situation where the accused was charged under
Section 302 but had been convicted under Section 306 IPC.
This Court felt that having acquitted the accused for an
offence under Section 302 which was the only charge against
the accused, he could not have been convicted for an offence
punishable under Section 306 IPC as both these offences were
distinct and different. Resultantly, the accused was acquitted.
The controversy arising from these two judgments of this
Court came up for consideration before a three-Judge Bench
of this court in the case of Dalbir Singh v. State of U.P. [(2004)
5 SCC 334], wherein the accused was charged with an offence
under Sections 302, 498A and 304-B IPC, but finally was
convicted under Section 302 by the Trial Court and sentenced
to death. On appeal, the High Court acquitted him of the
charge under Section 302 IPC opining that the evidence on
record clearly established the charge under Section 306 IPC.
43
Keeping in view the decision in the case of Sanagaraboina
Sreenu (supra), the High Court had concluded that the
accused could not be convicted under Section 306 and on this
basis convicted him under Section 498A alone. The argument
raised before this Court was that the basic ingredients were
distinct and different. The accused was not aware of the basic
ingredients, the facts sought to be established against him
were not explained to him and he did not get a fair chance to
defend himself. Resultantly, he ought not to have been
convicted for an offence under Section 498A IPC. Rejecting all
these contentions, this Court, while convicting the accused for
an offence under Section 306, held that the law stated in
Sanagaraboina Sreenu (supra) was not correct enunciation of
law and held as under :
“This question was again examined by a
three Judge Bench in Gurbachan Singh v.
State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 623 in
which it was held as under:
"[I]n judging a question of prejudice,
as of guilt, Courts 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
44
trial, whether he knew what he was
being tried for, whether the main
facts sought to be established
against him were explained to him
fairly and clearly and whether he
was given a full and fair chance to
defend himself."
17. There are a catena of decisions of this
Court on the same lines and it is not
necessary to burden this judgment by
making reference to each one of them.
Therefore, in view of Section 464 Cr.P.C.,
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 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 to him clearly and
whether he got a fair chance to defend
himself. We are, therefore, of the opinion
that Sangarabonia Sreenu (AIR 1957 SC
623) was not correctly decided as it
purports to lay down as a principle of law
that where the accused is charged under
Section 302 IPC, he cannot be convicted
for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
XXX XXX XXX
The next question to be seen is whether
the accused was confronted with the
aforesaid features of the prosecution case
45
in his statement under Section 313 CrPC.
His statement runs into six pages where
every aspect of the prosecution case
referred to above was put to him. He also
gave a long written statement in
accordance with Section 233(2) CrPC
wherein he admitted that Vimla
committed suicide. He also admitted that
the scooter and colour TV were
subsequently given to him by his in-laws
but came out with a plea that he had
paid money and purchased the same
from his in-laws. There is no aspect of the
prosecution which may not have been put
to him. We are, therefore, of the opinion
that in view of the material on record, the
conviction under Section 306 IPC can
safely be recorded and the same would
not result in failure of justice in any
manner. The record shows that the
accused was taken into custody on 29-3-
1991 and was released from jail after the
decision of the High Court on 20-3-1997
and thus he has undergone nearly six
years of imprisonment. In our opinion,
the period already undergone (as
undertrial and after conviction) would
meet the ends of justice.”
28. We may also make a reference to another three-Judge
Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shamnsaheb M.
Multtani vs. State of Karnataka [(2001) 2 SCC 577] which was
not noticed in the case of Dalbir Singh (supra). In that case,
the accused initially had been charged with an offence under
46
Section 302 IPC but was convicted for an offence under
Section 304B IPC as according to the High Court there was no
failure of justice. This Court found error in the judgment of
the High Court convicting the accused of an offence under
Section 304B as the accused was not put at notice of the
adverse presumption that the Court is statutorily bound to
draw on satisfaction of two ingredients of Section 304-B.
Therefore, this Court remanded the matter. It also noticed the
conflict of views expressed in the cases of Lakhjit Singh
(supra) and Sanagaraboina Sreenu (supra) and mentioned
that in ‘cognate offences’, the main ingredients are common
and the one amongst them that is punishable with a lesser
sentence can be regarded as a minor offence. The Court,
finding that the ingredients of Sections 302 and 304B are
different, held as follows:
“15. Section 222(1) of the Code deals with
a case “when a person is charged with an
offence consisting of several particulars”.
The section permits the court to convict
the accused “of the minor offence, though
he was not charged with it”. Sub-section
(2) deals with a similar, but slightly
different situation.
47
“222. (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.”
16. What is meant by “a minor offence”
for the purpose of Section 222 of the
Code? Although the said expression is
not defined in the Code it can be
discerned from the context that the test
of minor offence is not merely that the
prescribed punishment is less than the
major offence. The two illustrations
provided in the section would bring the
above point home well. Only if the two
offences are cognate offences, wherein the
main ingredients are common, the one
punishable among them with a lesser
sentence can be regarded as minor
offence vis-à-vis the other offence.
17. The composition of the offence under
Section 304-B IPC is vastly different from
the formation of the offence of murder
under Section 302 IPC and hence the
former cannot be regarded as minor
offence vis-à-vis the latter. However, the
position would be different when the
charge also contains the offence under
Section 498-A IPC (husband or relative of
husband of a women subjecting her to
cruelty). As the word “cruelty” is
explained as including, inter alia,
“harassment of the woman where
such harassment is with a view to
coercing her or any person related
48
to her to meet any unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security
or is on account of failure by her or
any person related to her to meet
such demand”.
18. So when a person is charged with an
offence under Sections 302 and 498-A
IPC on the allegation that he caused the
death of a bride after subjecting her to
harassment with a demand for dowry,
within a period of 7 years of marriage, a
situation may arise, as in this case, that
the offence of murder is not established
as against the accused. Nonetheless, all
other ingredients necessary for the
offence under Section 304-B IPC would
stand established. Can the accused be
convicted in such a case for the offence
under Section 304-B IPC without the said
offence forming part of the charge?
XXX XXX XXX
30. But the peculiar situation in
respect of an offence under Section 304-B
IPC, as discernible from the distinction
pointed out above in respect of the
offence under Section 306 IPC is this:
Under the former the court has a
statutory compulsion, merely on the
establishment of two factual positions
enumerated above, to presume that the
accused has committed dowry death. If
any accused wants to escape from the
said catch the burden is on him to
disprove it. If he fails to rebut the
presumption the court is bound to act on
it.
49
31. Now take the case of an accused who
was called upon to defend only a charge
under Section 302 IPC. The burden of
proof never shifts onto him. It ever
remains on the prosecution which has to
prove the charge beyond all reasonable
doubt. The said traditional legal concept
remains unchanged even now. In such a
case the accused can wait till the
prosecution evidence is over and then to
show that the prosecution has failed to
make out the said offence against him.
No compulsory presumption would go to
the assistance of the prosecution in such
a situation. If that be so, when an
accused has no notice of the offence
under Section 304-B IPC, as he was
defending a charge under Section 302
IPC alone, would it not lead to a grave
miscarriage of justice when he is
alternatively convicted under Section
304-B IPC and sentenced to the serious
punishment prescribed thereunder,
which mandates a minimum sentence of
imprisonment for seven years.
32. The serious consequence which may
ensue to the accused in such a situation
can be limned through an illustration: If
a bride was murdered within seven years
of her marriage and there was evidence to
show that either on the previous day or a
couple of days earlier she was subjected
to harassment by her husband with
demand for dowry, such husband would
be guilty of the offence on the language of
Section 304-B IPC read with Section 113-
B of the Evidence Act. But if the murder
of his wife was actually committed either
50
by a dacoit or by a militant in a terrorist
act the husband can lead evidence to
show that he had no hand in her death at
all. If he succeeds in discharging the
burden of proof he is not liable to be
convicted under Section 304-B IPC. But if
the husband is charged only under
Section 302 IPC he has no burden to
prove that his wife was murdered like
that as he can have his traditional
defence that the prosecution has failed to
prove the charge of murder against him
and claim an order of acquittal.
XXX XXX XXX
35. As the appellant was convicted by the
High Court under Section 304-B IPC,
without such an opportunity being
granted to him, we deem it necessary in
the interest of justice to afford him that
opportunity. The case in the trial court
should proceed against the appellant (not
against the other two accused whose
acquittal remains unchallenged now)
from the stage of defence evidence. He is
put to notice that unless he disproves the
presumption, he is liable to be convicted
under Section 304-B IPC.”
29. This concept of punishing the accused for a less grave
offence than the one for which he was charged is not unique to
the Indian Judicial System. It has its relevancy even under
the English jurisprudence under the concept of alternative
51
verdicts. In R v. Coutts (Appellant) , [2006 UKHL 39], the
appellant was convicted by the jury of the murder of the
deceased on an indictment charging him with that crime
alone. The deceased had died by accident when the appellant
and she had been engaged in consensual sexual asphyxial
activity. The House of Lords considered whether the issue of
manslaughter should have been left to the jury as an
alternative verdict which they could return under Section 6(2)
of the Criminal Law Act, 1967. The Court of Appeal rejected
the appellant’s contention that this issue should have been left
to the jury by the trial judge on the ground that for the judge
to introduce the possibility of a verdict of manslaughter on
these grounds would have transformed the nature of the case
that the appellant was required to meet. The appellant argued
in appeal that if the trial judge fails to leave to the jury an
intermediate verdict in the alternative which is raised by
credible evidence, that is an irregularity which will render the
verdict unsafe. The Crown took the stand that this was a
deliberate and sadistic killing. In resolving this issue, the
House of Lords was simultaneously faced with the broader
52
question concerning the duty and discretion of trial judges to
leave alternative verdicts of lesser-included offences to the jury
where there is evidence which a rational jury could accept to
support such a verdict but neither prosecution nor defence
seek it. Lord Bingham of Cornhill spoke thus on behalf of his
four learned colleagues:
“ The public interest in the
administration of justice is, in my
opinion, best served if in any trial on
indictment the trial judge leaves to the
jury, subject to any appropriate
caution or warning, but irrespective of
the wishes of trial counsel, any
obvious alternative offence which
there is evidence to support. I would
not extend the rule to summary
proceedings since, for all their potential
importance to individuals, they do not
engage the public interest to the same
degree. I would also confine the rule to
alternative verdicts obviously raised by
the evidence: by that I refer to
alternatives which should suggest
themselves to the mind of any ordinarily
knowledgeable and alert criminal judge,
excluding alternatives which ingenious
counsel may identify through diligent
research after the trial. Application of this
rule may in some cases benefit the
defendant, protecting him against an
excessive conviction. In other cases it
may benefit the public, by providing for
53
the conviction of a lawbreaker who
deserves punishment. A defendant may,
quite reasonably from his point of view,
choose to roll the dice. But the interests
of society should not depend on such a
contingency.
(emphasis supplied)”
30. Therefore, the Lords were of the unanimous opinion that
the judge should have left a manslaughter verdict to the jury
and his failure to do so was a material irregularity. The Court
of Appeal, following the advice of the House of Lords, quashed
the appellant′s conviction and ordered a retrial.
31. As is evident from the above stated principles of law in
various judgments, there is no absolute bar or impediment, in
law, in punishing a person for an offence less grave than the
offences for which the accused was charged during the course
of the trial provided the essential ingredients for adopting such
a course are satisfied.
32. In the present case, we are primarily concerned with an
offence punishable under Section 396 IPC and in alternative
for an offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The offence under
Section 396 consists of two parts: firstly, dacoity by five or
54
more persons, and secondly, committing of a murder in
addition to the offence of dacoity. If the accused have
committed both these offences, they are liable to be punished
with death or imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment
for a term which may extend to ten years and be liable to pay
fine as well. Under Section 302 IPC, whoever commits murder
shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and
shall also be liable to pay fine. The offence of murder has
been explained under Section 300 IPC. If the act by which the
death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, it
is murder. It will also be a murder, if it falls in any of the
circumstances secondly, thirdly and fourthly of Section 300
and it is not so when it falls in the exception to that Section.
33. On the conjoint reading of Sections 396 and 302 IPC, it is
clear that the offence of murder has been lifted and
incorporated in the provisions of Section 396 IPC. In other
words, the offence of murder punishable under Section 302
and as defined under Section 300 will have to be read into the
provisions of offences stated under Section 396 IPC. In other
words, where a provision is physically lifted and made part of
55
another provision, it shall fall within the ambit and scope of
principle akin to ‘legislation by incorporation’ which normally
is applied between an existing statute and a newly enacted
law. The expression ‘murder’ appearing in Section 396 would
have to take necessarily in its ambit and scope the ingredients
of Section 300 of the IPC. In our opinion, there is no scope for
any ambiguity. The provisions are clear and admit no scope
for application of any other principle of interpretation except
the ‘golden rule of construction’, i.e., to read the statutory
language grammatically and terminologically in the ordinary
and primary sense which it appears in its context without
omission or addition. These provisions read collectively, put
the matter beyond ambiguity that the offence of murder, is by
specific language, included in the offences under Section 396.
It will have the same connotation, meaning and ingredients as
are contemplated under the provisions of Section 302 IPC.
34. In light of the principles afore-stated, now we may revert
to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. It is
admittedly a case of circumstantial evidence and, thus, the
evidence has to be examined in that context. There is no
56
dispute to the fact that the charge under Sections 396 and
201 IPC had been framed against the accused. The Trial
Court had acquitted the four accused but convicted the
present appellant for an offence under Sections 302 and 201
while convicting another accused, namely Ahsan, for an
offence punishable under Section 411 IPC. The judgment of
the trial court was upheld by the High Court in so far as the
acquittal of the four accused for the offences under Section
396 was concerned as well as the conviction of the present
appellant under Section 396 IPC. However, the High Court
acquitted Ahsan for the offence under Section 201 IPC which
does not concern us in the present appeal. The charge being
under Section 396 alone whether the accused could have been
convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC without
alteration of charge is the short question involved in the case
before us. Let us examine the evidence for conviction of the
appellant on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. The
High Court in paragraph 35 of its judgment has stated the
following circumstances which undoubtedly point towards the
guilt of the accused: -
57
“1. That the deceased (Jagdish Chandra)
left his house/shop for Nehtaur on
30.09.77 to realize the amount from
customers.
2. That he was seen in Nehtaur Kasba by
PW-2 Ved Prakash and PW-4 Gyan
Chand on that day who saw him
occupying taxi no. UPS 7293.
3. That the deceased was sitting in the
taxi along with others and appellant Rafiq
Ahmad was found on the driver seat;
4. That the taxi in question proceeded for
Dhampur from Agency Chauraha,
Nehtaur in the presence of PW-4 Gyan
Chand;
5. That the appellant (Rafiq Ahmad) was
arrested by the police on 2.10.77
alongwith his taxi and he made a
confession to the IO in the presence of
two public witnesses that he had
concealed the dead body in a sugarcane
field near village kashmiri;
6. That subsequent recovery of the dad
(sic) body of deceased (Jagdish Chandra)
from the sugarcane field at the pointing
out of the appellant in the night indicates
that Rafiq Ahmad alongwith some others
looted the cash and other valuables from
the person of the deceased.
7. That Jagdish Chandra was done to
death by the appellant (Rafiq Ahmad) in
the night intervening 30.9.77/1.10.77
58
and the appellant with a view to screen
himself from legal punishment caused
disappearance of the dead body by
throwing the same in the sugarcane
field.”
35. The above circumstances have to be examined along with
the statements of Ved Prakash (PW2) and Gyan Chand (PW4),
the witnesses who had last seen the deceased with the
appellant. The statements of the Investigating Officer (PW11)
and the witnesses including Pyare Lal (PW3), in whose
presence the dead body was recovered at the behest of the
appellant, by means of recovery memo Ex.PW Ex-Ka 3 are the
other material pieces of evidence which would complete the
chain of events and point undoubtedly towards the guilt of the
accused. The accused, for the reasons best known to him,
had taken up a stand of complete denial in his statement
th
dated 20 February, 1981 recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
and opted not to explain his whereabouts at the relevant time.
Furthermore, he was a regular taxi driver at the stand of
Agency Chauraha. It is true that the statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C. cannot be the sole basis for conviction of the
accused but certainly it can be a relevant consideration for the
59
courts to examine, particularly when the prosecution has
otherwise been able to establish the chain of events. It is
clearly established from the evidence on record that the
deceased was a regular trader and used to come to Nehtaur
from where he was picked up by the appellant on the fateful
day. These were certain definite circumstances clearly
indicating towards the involvement of the appellant in the
commission of the crime. The prosecution has been able to
establish its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the
circumstantial evidence. There is no significant link which is
missing in the case put forward by the prosecution.
36. At this stage, we may refer to a Constitution Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of Shyam Behari v. State
of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1957 S.C. 320] wherein the accused after
being charged for an offence under Section 396 IPC was finally
convicted under Section 302 IPC. The Court in the said
judgment held as under:
“15. It is, however, unnecessary to do so
because in the facts and circumstances of
the present case the appellant is liable to
be convicted of the offence under Section
60
302 Indian Penal Code without anything
more. The charge under Section 396,
Indian Penal Code comprised of two
ingredients:- (1) the commission of the
dacoity, and (2) the commission of the
murder in so committing the dacoity.
The first ingredient was proved without
any doubt and was not challenged by the
learned counsel for the appellant. The
second ingredient also was proved in any
event as regards the commission of the
murder because the attention of the
accused was focused not only on the
commission of the offence while
committing the dacoity but also on the
individual part which he took in the
commission of that murder. So far as he
was concerned, he knew from the charge
which was framed against him that he
was sought to be made responsible not
only for the commission of the dacoity
but also for the commission of the
murder in committing such dacoity. The
evidence which was led on behalf of the
prosecution specifically implicated him
and he was named by the prosecution
witnesses as the person who shot at
Mendai while crossing the ditch of the
Pipra Farm. His examination under
section 342 of the Criminal Procedure
Code also brought out that point
specifically against him and he was
questioned in that behalf. Both the
Courts below recorded their concurrent
findings of fact in regard to the part taken
by the appellant in the commission of the
murder of Mendai. Under these
circumstances it could not be urged that
the appellant could not be convicted of
61
the offence under Section 302, Indian
Penal Code if such a charge could be
made out against him (Vide our decision
in Willie (William) Slaney v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, Crl App No. 6 of 1955
D/- 31-10-1955 ( (S) AIR 1956 SC 116)
(F)”
37. The above Constitution Bench judgment of this Court, in
law, squarely applies to the present case. We ought not be
understood to say that the facts of both the cases are
identical. In the case of Shyam Behari (supra), the accused
had killed the deceased while retreating after committing the
dacoity while in the present case the evidence, though
circumstantial, is that the appellant had killed the accused
brutally and then hid his dead body in the fields to destroy the
evidence. Thus, suffice it to note that both the cases have
some similarity in circumstances but the principle of law
stated in Shyam Behari’s case (supra) is squarely applicable to
the present case.
38. For the reasons afore-recorded, we are of the considered
view that no prejudice has been caused to the appellant by his
conviction for an offence under Section 302 IPC though he was
62
initially charged with an offence punishable under Section 396
IPC read with Section 201 IPC. Further, the nature of injuries
namely three incised wounds, three abrasions and severing of
the trachea, caused by a sharp-edged weapon as noticed by
the High Court in para 34 of its judgment, indicate that the
accused knew that the injury inflicted would be sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The ‘prejudice’
has to be examined with reference to the rights and/or
protections available to the accused. The incriminating
evidence had been clearly put to the accused in his statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The circumstances which
constitute an offence under Section 302 were literally put to
him, as Section 302 IPC itself is an integral part of an offence
punishable under Section 396 IPC. The learned counsel
appearing for the appellant has not been able to demonstrate
any prejudice which the appellant has suffered in his right to
defence, fair trial and in relation to the case of the
prosecution. Once the appellant has not suffered any
prejudice, much less a serious prejudice, then the conviction
of the appellant under Section 302 IPC cannot be set aside
63
merely for want of framing of a specific/alternate charge for an
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. It is more so
because the dimensions and facets of an offence under Section
302 are incorporated by specific language and are inbuilt in
the offence punishable under Section 396 IPC. Thus, on the
application of principle of ‘cognate offences’, there is no
prejudice caused to the rights of the appellant.
39. For the reasons afore-stated, we find no merit in this
appeal and the same is dismissed.
.....................................J.
[Dr. B.S. Chauhan]
.....................................J.
[Swatanter Kumar]
New Delhi;
August 4, 2011