Judgment Augustine George Masih, J. 1. This appeal was heard by us on 04.01.2011 when on considering the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondent-State of Haryana as also the evidence on record, the following order was passed:- "Arguments heard. This appeal is partly allowed. Conviction under Section 302 IPC is set aside and altered to one under Section 306 IPC. Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years is imposed on the accused appellant. The accused-appellant will be entitled to set off in accordance with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. In the event the accused-appellant is required to undergo any further period of custody to serve out sentence imposed on him he may be taken into custody forthwith. Our reasons for the conclusions recorded above will follow." REASONS: 2. The allegations, as per prosecution, in brief are that the appellant Sucha Singh was married to Kaushalya Devi (deceased) about nine years prior to the date of occurrence i.e. 07.08,2000. Sufficient dowry was given but the appellant and his family members were not satisfied with the same and started harassing Kaushalya Devi for bringing more dowry. Whenever she visited the house of her parents she narrated the cruelty meted out to her and the demand made by the appellant and his family members. She used to take with her whenever she visited her parents clothes and other gifts in order to appease the appellant and his family. Out of the wed-lock, three sons were born. The. appellant was addicted to liquor and everyday after consuming liquor, gave beatings to his wife and to satisfy his urge for liquor, he would ask her to bring more money from her parents. About 10 days prior to the death of Kaushalya Devi, she had sent a message that some cash amount be sent to the appellant for appeasing him. Reshma Devi, aunt of Kaushalya Devi and wife of Gurdev Singh (complainant) uncle of the deceased, visited her and gave Rs.2,000/- to Kashalya. On returning to her house, Reshma Devi told the family members that Kaushalya was unhappy and distressed because of mal-treatment given to her. 3. The first informant Gurdev Singh, uncle of the deceased Kaushalya, while he was returning to his house from HMT, Pinjore where he was employed, got down at Ramgarh, a village near the matrimonial village i.e. Mankian of Kaushalya. 3. The first informant Gurdev Singh, uncle of the deceased Kaushalya, while he was returning to his house from HMT, Pinjore where he was employed, got down at Ramgarh, a village near the matrimonial village i.e. Mankian of Kaushalya. He came to know at the bus stop that his niece has been murdered. He sent a message to his brother Karnail Singh, father of the deceased Kaushalya Devi, who arrived there and from there, they went along with the police party to the house of the appellant where they found body of the Kaushalya Devi lying on the cot in the courtyard of the house. 4. The statement of Gurdev Singh, EX.PA was recorded by the Investigating Officer PW9 on 07.08.2000 and, on the basis of which, FIR Ex.PC was registered. Special report was sent to learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class on 08.08.2000 which was received at 12.40 A.M. ASI Mam Raj, Investigating Officer carried out the inquest proceedings. The accused was arrested on 11.08.2000 and on completion of the investigation, challan was presented against the appellant. He was charged for commission of offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC on 29.11.2000. 5. The prosecution examined nine witnesses and produced on record the documents to prove the charge against the accused and the prosecution evidence was closed on 03.12.2001. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 21.12.2001 and the case was adjourned for. defence evidence. The appellant examined four witnesses in defence and also produced a document Ex.DA. On completion of the defence evidence, arguments were heard on 21.03.2002 and the case was fixed for orders on 27.03.2002. An application was filed by the public prosecutor for the State for amendment of charge on which notice was issued on the said application on 26.03.2002, no reply was filed by the appellant despite opportunity and on hearing the counsel for the parties, the charge was amended vide order dated 03.04.2002. The appellant was charged under Sections 302, 325, 498-A or in the alternative under Section 306 IPC. 6. The learned public prosecutor made a statement that he does not want to re-examine any witness and the case was adjourned for riling the list of witnesses the appellant wants to re-examine. The witnesses, as desired by the appellant, were re-called and further re-examined/cross-examined. 6. The learned public prosecutor made a statement that he does not want to re-examine any witness and the case was adjourned for riling the list of witnesses the appellant wants to re-examine. The witnesses, as desired by the appellant, were re-called and further re-examined/cross-examined. On conclusion of the trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 498-A IPC for one years Rigorous Imprisonment (hereinafter referred to as "R.I.") with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for three months, under Section 325 IPC, to undergo R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- In default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for six months and under Section 302 IPC, to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for one year. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the trial Court vide order dated 09.08.2002 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, against which the present appeal has been filed. 7. Counsel for the appellant submits that conviction of the appellant under Sections 302, 325 IPC cannot be sustained merely on the ground that after the amendment of the charge vide order dated 03.04.2002 and on the close of evidence by the prosecution, the incriminating material against the appellant was not put to him and no statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He contends that in any case, there is no evidence led by the prosecution which would prove the offence under Sections 302 and 325 IPC against the appellant. No evidence has also come forth against the appellant with regard to the demand of dowry and, therefore, conviction under Section 498-A IPC also cannot be sustained. In the alternative, he contends that even offence under Section 306 IPC, on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution, is not made out and, therefore, prays for acquittal of the accused. He submits that the case is of suicide which the deceased Kaushalya had committed because she was fed up with the regular demands for money by her father Karnail Singh who was not keeping good health since long and being a labourer, had no income at all. He submits that the case is of suicide which the deceased Kaushalya had committed because she was fed up with the regular demands for money by her father Karnail Singh who was not keeping good health since long and being a labourer, had no income at all. The report received from the F.S.L. shows that aluminium phosphide was detected in the viscera sent by the doctor which proved that the deceased Kaushalya had consumed poison and had died because of that. The prosecution witness PWi Gurdev Singh, first informant, has admitted that the appellant was well off and much better placed financially than the parental family of Kaushalya Devi. It has been admitted that father of Kaushalya, Karnail Singh had been unwell for the last 20 years and was only a labourer who might be earning Rs. 1,000/- or Rs.2,000/- per month. He, on this basis, contends that there was no question of demand of dowry or any other demand being raised by the appellant from the father of Kaushalya i.e. Karnail Singh. The injury, which was found on the head of the deceased in the post-mortem report, was not present at the time when the inquest report was prepared by the Investigating Officer PW9 ASI Mam Raj, which fact was admitted by this witness in his evidence. Statements recorded of other prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also do not speak about any injury on the person of the deceased, and, therefore, the counsel contends that the said injury occurred after the death of the deceased when dead body was being taken from the house to the hospital. No evidence was produced to prove that the said injury was caused by the appellant rather the prosecution evidence had proceeded on the assumption that the appellant had abetted the deceased to commit suicide. He, on this basis, contends that the appeal be allowed. 8. On the other hand, counsel for the State has vehemently argued on the basis of the medical evidence and the statement of PW4 Dr. Pankaj Mala, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the body that the head injury was ante-mortem in nature and the weapon used for causing the said injury, was a blunt one. The cause of death, in the opinion of the doctor, was result of both the head injury as well as poisoning. Pankaj Mala, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the body that the head injury was ante-mortem in nature and the weapon used for causing the said injury, was a blunt one. The cause of death, in the opinion of the doctor, was result of both the head injury as well as poisoning. He further stresses that it is an admitted fact that at the time when the poison was administered or consumed, the appellant was very much present in the house as is apparent from the statement of DW4 Gurdev Kaur, mother of the appellant. Since Kaushalya Devi was residing with the appellant, it was for the appellant to explain the injury on the head of the deceased. The oral and the medical evidence produced on record clearly establishes the offence, under which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced and, therefore, there is no merit in the appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard counsel for the parties and with their able assistance, have gone through the evidence, and documents on record. 10. The appellant was initially charged under Sections 306, 498-A IPC by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Panchkula vide order dated 29.11.2000. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 03.12.2001. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 21.12.2001. The defence evidence concluded on 16.03.2002. The arguments were heard on 21.03.2002 and the case was fixed for 27.03.2002 for orders when an application for amendment of charge was moved by the learned public prosecutor for the State on 26.03.2002 in which notice was issued. After giving an opportunity to the appellant to file reply to the said application, which was not availed, arguments were heard in the case and the charge was amended on 03.04.2002 and Sections 302 and 325 IPC were added to the previous charge framed against the accused. On that very day, the learned public prosecutor made a statement that he does not want to re-examine any witness. The case was adjourned to 08.04.2002 for filing the list of prosecution/defence witnesses which the defence wanted to re-examine/cross-examine. On that very day, the learned public prosecutor made a statement that he does not want to re-examine any witness. The case was adjourned to 08.04.2002 for filing the list of prosecution/defence witnesses which the defence wanted to re-examine/cross-examine. On conclusion of the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, as summoned by the appellant-accused, the trial Court should have recorded the statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. which the trial Court failed to do.11. Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1976 reads as follows: 11. Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1976 reads as follows: "Section 313. Power to examine the accused- (1) In every inquiry or trial, for.the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court- (a) may at any stage, without previously waming the accused put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary; (b) shall after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence question him generally on the case: Provided that in a summon-case where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b). (2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub-section (1). (3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them. (4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed. (5) The Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused and the Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance of this Section." 12. Two occasions are contemplated under the Section for the examination of the accused. The first relates to the putting of questions at any stage of the trial or inquiry and the second when the prosecution evidence is over and the accused is called upon to enter his defence. Two occasions are contemplated under the Section for the examination of the accused. The first relates to the putting of questions at any stage of the trial or inquiry and the second when the prosecution evidence is over and the accused is called upon to enter his defence. In the former case, there is no obligation on the Court to put any questions but it may do so to the extent it considered necessary. The discretion is of the Court and the questioning is purely optional. In the latter case, however, it is imperative for the Court to question the accused generally on the case. 13. The requirement of this Section is that the accused be examined for purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him personally, except where the statute provides otherwise, The principle Of audi alteram partem, which was an elementary rule of justice, also finds its compliance in this Section as also the principle that no person should be condemned unheard. The accused should be heard not merely on what is prima-facie proved against him but also with regard to the evidence and circumstances appearing against him. It is based on and is in furtherance to one of the most fundamental principles to be observed in a criminal trial that the accused should be called upon to explain the evidence against him which can be relied upon to hold him guilty and thus should be given an opportunity of stating his own case and explain his stand in this regard. 14. Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been provided to give the accused a fair chance to explain his stand with regard to the circumstances in the evidence, which have been collected against him and has come on record during the trial. An onerous responsibility- has been put on the Court to make the accused to understand the case of the prosecution as made out against him as also the evidence which has been collected by the prosecution. This provision has been cautiously incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure so that the accused gets a fair trial. The questions, which are to be put to the accused by the Court, must be simple, clear, specific and in simple language which can be understood and appreciated even by the ignorant and illiterate person(s). This provision has been cautiously incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure so that the accused gets a fair trial. The questions, which are to be put to the accused by the Court, must be simple, clear, specific and in simple language which can be understood and appreciated even by the ignorant and illiterate person(s). The attention of the accused needs to be drawn to the specific points in the charge and in the evidence, on which the prosecution claims that the case is made out against the accused. Fairness, therefore, requires that each material circumstance and incriminating material should be put simply and clearly to the accused lest he is deprived of his valuable right of explanation as his statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. can be taken into consideration by the trial Court in judging the innocence or guilt of the accused, therefore, noncompliance or violation of this Section would vitiate the trial as has been held by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ranvir Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2009)6 Supreme Court Cases 595. 15. In the light of the broad principles, as mentioned above, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 302 and 325 IPC cannot be sustained as the trial Court, after the amendment of the charge and completion of the re-examination/cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses as recalled by the appellant-accused and before calling upon him to produce his defence, had not recorded the statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. nor has the material and evidence collected by the prosecution which were prima-facie proved against him, were put to him by the trial Court. 16. Even otherwise, a perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution does not indicate that the appellant had given the injury on the head of the deceased Kaushalya Devi. Statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. do not point towards any injury on the body of the deceased. Even the inquest report Ex.PH proved on record by PW9 ASI Mam Raj (Investigating Officer), does not mention any external injury on the dead body. He, on the basis of the investigation conducted by him, had stated in his statement before the Court that after completion of the entire investigation, he had come to the conclusion that Kaushalya Devi had committed suicide having been fed up with her husband. He, on the basis of the investigation conducted by him, had stated in his statement before the Court that after completion of the entire investigation, he had come to the conclusion that Kaushalya Devi had committed suicide having been fed up with her husband. Nothing has come on record even to suggest about the weapon of offence nor has any such weapon been produced or recovered. There being no evidence to connect the head injury with the accused nor there being any allegation about the appellant having caused the said injury, conviction of the appellant under Sections 302, 325 IPC cannot be sustained. 17. It has come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses especially PW1 Gurdev Singh and PW3 Karnail Singh, who are uncle and father of the deceased, that the appellant was a drunkard and to satisfy his urge for alcohol, he had even mortgaged the dowry articles which were later got released by them. Not only this, due to this bad habit and addiction of alcohol he had been harassing, beating, humiliating and demanding money from his wife. The demand for money had been earlier fulfilled 4-5 times by Gurdev Singh PW1 and 10 days prior to the date of incident, an amount of Rs.2,000/- was also paid to Kaushalya as per the demand. In view of the above evidence, although the demand of dowry by the appellant is not proved, however, the demand of money to fulfil his urge for alcohol, to which he was addicted, from his wife and when the same was not satisfied, his harassing, humiliating and beating her, stands proved. It has been established beyond doubt that this conduct of the appellant pushed his wife Kaushalya Devi to such a stage leaving no other option for her except to commit suicide. From the evidence led by the prosecution, it has been proved that poison was consumed by the deceased Kaushalya Devi as the FSL report establishes that the Aluminium Phosphide was detected in stomach, small intestines, large intestines along with their contents and in lungs, spleen, lever, kidney and also in blood from heart. Thus, offence under Section 306 IPC stands proved against the appellant and he is held guilty of having abetted the commission of suicide by his wife, Kaushalya Devi.