Sangaraboina Sreenu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 1990.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 16.8.89 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crl. A. No. 382 of 1989)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 16.8.89 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crl. A. No. 382 of 1989)
Petitioner: Sangaraboina Sreenu
Respondent: State of Andhra Pradesh
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 1990.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 16.8.89 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crl. A. No. 382 of 1989)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 16.8.89 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crl. A. No. 382 of 1989)
Judges: M.K. MUKHERJEE & S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 23, 1997
Appearances:
Mr. A. Subba Rao, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. G. Prabhakar, Advocate for the Respondent.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
Code of Criminal Procedure
Section 222 – IPC 302, 306 – Held offences under Sections 302 and 306 are of distinct and different categories i.e. of homicidal death under section 302 and abetment of suicidal death under section 306 – Section 306 is not a minor offence in relation to an offence under Section 302 in terms of Section 222 Criminal Procedure Code and High Court having acquitted the appellant under Section 302 could not convict him under section 306 – Appeal allowed and conviction set aside.
Code of Criminal Procedure
Section 222 – IPC 302, 306 – Held offences under Sections 302 and 306 are of distinct and different categories i.e. of homicidal death under section 302 and abetment of suicidal death under section 306 – Section 306 is not a minor offence in relation to an offence under Section 302 in terms of Section 222 Criminal Procedure Code and High Court having acquitted the appellant under Section 302 could not convict him under section 306 – Appeal allowed and conviction set aside.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1.The appellant was put up for trial before the Sessions judge, Warangal for uxoricide. The accusation against him was that on May 13, 1987 at or about 9.30 p.m. he poured kerosene oil on the body of his wife and set her on fire. The trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC but in the appeal preferred by him the High Court set aside his above conviction and convicted him under Section 306 IPC. The above judgment of the High Court is under challenge in this appeal.
2. This appeal must succeed for the simple reason that having acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 302 IPC – which was the only charge framed against him – the High Court could not have convicted him of the offence under Section 306. It is true that Section 222 Cr. P.C. entitles a Court to convict a person of an offence which is minor in comparison to the one for which he is trial but Section 306 IPC cannot be said to be a minor offence in relation to an offence under Section 302 IPC within the meaning of Section 222 Cr. P.C. for the two offences are of distinct and different categories. While the basic constituent of an offence under Section 302 IPC is homicidal death those of Section 306 IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof.
3. For the foregoing reason the appeal is allowed and the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC is set aside. The appellant, who is on hail, is discharged from his bail bonds.
1.The appellant was put up for trial before the Sessions judge, Warangal for uxoricide. The accusation against him was that on May 13, 1987 at or about 9.30 p.m. he poured kerosene oil on the body of his wife and set her on fire. The trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC but in the appeal preferred by him the High Court set aside his above conviction and convicted him under Section 306 IPC. The above judgment of the High Court is under challenge in this appeal.
2. This appeal must succeed for the simple reason that having acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 302 IPC – which was the only charge framed against him – the High Court could not have convicted him of the offence under Section 306. It is true that Section 222 Cr. P.C. entitles a Court to convict a person of an offence which is minor in comparison to the one for which he is trial but Section 306 IPC cannot be said to be a minor offence in relation to an offence under Section 302 IPC within the meaning of Section 222 Cr. P.C. for the two offences are of distinct and different categories. While the basic constituent of an offence under Section 302 IPC is homicidal death those of Section 306 IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof.
3. For the foregoing reason the appeal is allowed and the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC is set aside. The appellant, who is on hail, is discharged from his bail bonds.
