Mechanical Addition Of S. 302 IPC 'Unsustainable': Allahabad HC Explains When Trial Courts Can Add Murder Charge In Dowry Death Cases

The Allahabad High Court recently took exception to the routine and mechanical addition of Section 302 of the IPC (Murder) by trial court judges in the state to the cases already involving dowry death and dowry-related inhuman treatment without any supporting material. A bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi observed that the mechanical addition of a murder charge (Section 302 IPC) to the cases involving dowry death and dowry-related inhuman treatment was making the situation “more grim and serious”. “Charges are framed relying upon the nature of evidence collected during investigation and not only in air or whimsical way. In fact, our lower courts are under the commands or in some mistake notion of law, they keep on adding Section 302 I.P.C. as an alternate charge without any cogent material to justify the same, which would bound to lead a disastrous result qua the accused-appellant,” the Court said. The Court explained that the appropriate way for the Courts is to examine if the evidence collected during the investigation, direct or circumstantial, prima facie supports and justifies adding a charge u/s 302 IPC, and then only the Trial Judge should frame the murder charge. The court added that in such a situation, the charge under Section 302 IPC would be the main charge and not the alternative one, as the trial courts in the State erroneously assumed while framing the charge of Dowry Death. “If the main charge of murder is not proved against the accused at the trial, the court then only switch over to look into evidence to determine whether the alternative charge of Dowry Death u/s 304B I.P.C. is established or not,” the Court clarified. The cases before the Court The occasion to make these observations arose while the Court was dealing with 6 criminal appeals filed by the accused convicted under 6 different cases concerning dowry death/dowry-related inhuman treatment cases. In fact, in one of the cases, the Trial Judge convicted the accused of both offences under sections 302 and 304B IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The Court noted a specific pattern in all 6 judgments, whereby almost all the FIRs were registered u/s 498A, 304B I.P.C. & 3/4 DP Act, but the trial courts invariably in all the aforesaid cases have inserted Section 302 IPC as an alternative charge without loking the evidence as to whether the offence of murder was made out. The peculiarity of all the appeals was that almost in all cases, the Trial Judge exonerated the accused-appellants from the charges u/s 498A, 304B IPC & 3/4 DP Act, but taking recourse to Section 106 of Evidence Act, all the respective appellants were convicted for the alternate offence u/s 302 IPC simplicitor or with the aid and help of Section 34 IPC. High Court's observations At the outset, the Court noted that the trial judges were framing murder charges in all such cases based on the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Rajbir @ Raju and another vs. State of Haryana (2010). “Trial Courts are mechanically framing the charges, unmindful of the fact that there is no evidence even for namesake to justify the addition of Section 302 I.P.C. simply in faithful compliance of the judgment given in Rajbir's case (supra),” the HC observed. In the 2010 case, the top Court had directed all the trial courts in India to ordinarily add Section 302 to the charge of Section 304-B IPC, so that death sentences can be imposed in such heinous and barbaric crimes against women. However, this judgment and the direction issued in that case were later clarified by the Supreme Court in the 2013 case of Jasvinder Saini vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), wherein it was stated that in a case where a charge alleging dowry death is framed, a charge under Section 302 can also be framed if the evidence otherwise permits. The relevant direction of the Apex Court issued in the Jasvinder Saini case is reproduced below: “…this Court had in Rajbir's case (supra) directed the addition of a charge under Section 302 IPC to every case in which the accused are charged with Section 304-B. That was not, in our opinion, the true purport of the order passed by this Court. The direction was not meant to be followed mechanically and without due regard to the nature of the evidence available in the case. All that this Court meant to say was that in a case where a charge alleging dowry death is framed, a charge under Section 302 can also be framed if the evidence otherwise permits. No other meaning could be deduced from the order of this Court.” Against this backdrop, the Allahabad HC said that trial courts ought to frame charges for the offence of murder against the accused only if the evidence collected during the investigation warrants so. If Section 302 IPC offence is added, it should be treated as the main offence and supplementary offence,...

Mechanical Addition Of S. 302 IPC 'Unsustainable': Allahabad HC Explains When Trial Courts Can Add Murder Charge In Dowry Death Cases

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mechanical Addition Of S. 302 IPC 'Unsustainable': Allahabad HC Explains When Trial Courts Can Add Murder Charge In Dowry Death Cases

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers