Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1050 (MAD)

Sekar alias Shanmugam v. State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Koodalur, Nilgiris District

2000-10-24

FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA

body2000
JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment of the lower court convicting the appellant under Secs.304(B) and 408(A), I.P.C., read with Sec.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and also three months rigorous imprisonment having been found guilty of the offences under Secs.304(B) and 439(A), I.P.C., read with Sec.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the sentences to be run concurrently. 2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the appellant was charged under Sec.306, I.P.C., and 408(A), I.P.C. read with Sec.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, that the offence charged under Sec.306, I.P.C. did not postulate any minimum sentence in the event of conviction, that nevertheless the lower court without following the procedure prescribed under Sec.216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, convicted the appellant under a different provision namely, Sec.304(B), I.P.C., which prescribes a minimum period of imprisonment of seven years. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor also fairly submitted that the trial court has not followed the procedure while altering the charge from 306, I.P.C., to 304(B), I.P.C. Inasmuch as Sec.216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for a specific procedure to be followed in the case of alteration of any charge or a condition of any charge by the trial court and such a procedure has been prescribed to be followed mandatorily, there is no other way except to set aside the judgment of the court below, while at the same time directing the court to follow the procedure prescribed under Sec.216(iv) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Inasmuch as the alteration of charge involved in this case would prejudicially affect the accused in the event of the ultimate conviction being made, the trial court is bound to conduct the trial again after the alteration of the charge. 4. In such circumstances, the judgment of the trial court is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial court for fresh trial to be held in accordance with Sec.216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and proceed according to law. 5. With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of. The file shall be sent to the trial court for proceeding further with the fresh trial to be held in accordance with Sec.216(iv) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.