Unless Acts Constituting Both Abetment & Cruelty Are Set Out In Charge U/S 306 IPC, Conviction U/S 498A Can't Be Sustained: P&H High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that unless the specific acts constituting both abetment and cruelty are explicitly set out in the charge under Section 306 IPC, a conviction under Section 498-A cannot be sustained in the absence of a separate charge of any specific charge for such offence.

According to Section 222 of CrPC, 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 not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, “an offence under Section 498-A IPC is not a lesser offence of Section 306 IPC, warranting automatic application of Section 222 Cr.PC. Nonetheless...in exceptional cases, a conviction under Section 498-A IPC may still be valid even if there is no separate charge, provided that the charge under Section 306 IPC is framed in a manner that comprehensively includes all incriminating acts falling under Section 498-A.”

The Court was hearing an appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Judge in 2004 in the case stemming from Section 306 of the IPC.

The appellants were convicted under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 each.

According to the prosecution, the daughter of Jagat Ram, the complainant, namely Shakuntla, was married to the appellant in June 2002. The appellant had a love affair with his elder brother's wife (appellant No. 2), which caused quarrels in the house. Since the appellant, his brother Satpal, and his wife (appellant No. 2) used to harass Shakuntla, the complainant met with them to pacify the situation, but to no avail.

Consequently, the appellant took Shakuntla back to his house, where she remained for about two months. Thereafter, with the intervention of respectables, Shakuntla was sent to her matrimonial home but the quarrelling did not cease. On 26 February 2003, the complainant went to meet Shakuntla who told him that the appellants harassed her and at the instance of appellant No.2 (jethani), they beat her. Subsequently, on 28 February 2003, he received a telephonic message that his daughter has died due to strangulation, upon which he reached Civil Hospital, where they found her lying dead and came to know that she committed suicide by hanging herself.

In the Trial, the charge under Section 306 IPC was framed against the husband (appellant No.1) by the trial Court to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After recording the statement of complainant-Jagat Ram, Satpal and Santosh Kumari were also summoned to face trial, on the application under Section 319 CrPC. After their appearance, charge under Section 306 IPC was framed against all the accused to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence on record, held the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them under Section 498-A IPC.

After hearing the submissions, the Court considered the question, “whether the learned trial Court, having acquitted the accused for offence under Section 306 IPC, could still proceed to convict the appellants for offence under Section 498-A IPC, despite the fact that no specific charge had been framed under it.”

It noted that issue would primarily revolve around the question as to whether an offence under Section 498-A IPC can be said to be a lesser offence than under Section 306 IPC, so as to justify the conviction under Section 498-A IPC, even in the absence of any specific charge for such offence.

Perusing Section 222 CrPC, the Court highlighted that, "it is evident that Section 498-A of the IPC cannot be regarded as a 'minor offence' in relation to Section 306 IPC. The essential components of these offences are distinct. However, in certain cases—particularly those involving a wife's suicide—the alleged acts of abetment may also constitute 'cruelty' under Section 498-A IPC."

Justice Brar held that, unless the specific acts constituting both abetment and cruelty are explicitly set out in the charge under Section 306 IPC, a conviction under Section 498-A cannot be sustained in the absence of a separate charge for it.

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Judge s set aside.

Mr. Jasraj Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Subhash Godara, AddI.A.G., Punjab.

Title: Talwinder Singh & anr v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 120

Click here to read/download the order