The Calcutta High Court has set aside the conviction of appellants in a dowry death case, ruling that the trial was vitiated because the Trial Court altered the charge after the closure of prosecution evidence without affording the accused an opportunity to recall and cross-examine witnesses.
The Bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas observed that the failure to provide the accused an opportunity to meet the altered charges under Section 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) resulted in “manifest injustice and serious prejudice to the defence.” The matter has been remanded to the Trial Court for a fresh trial from the stage of alteration of the charge.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a written complaint lodged by Radheshyam Gupta, the maternal uncle of the deceased victim. The complaint alleged that the victim, who was married to Appellant No. 1 (Manik Shaw), met with an unnatural death on November 30, 1990, at the age of 22 due to severe burn injuries.
The complainant alleged that soon after the marriage, the deceased was subjected to persistent demands for dowry and physical and mental torture. Based on the complaint, Titagarh Police Station registered a case under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Upon completion of the investigation, the Trial Court initially framed charges against the accused persons under Sections 498A and 304 of the IPC on August 1, 1995. The prosecution examined fourteen witnesses. However, after the closure of prosecution evidence, the Trial Court, by an order dated March 3, 2001, altered the charges to Sections 498A/34 and 304B/34 of the IPC against twelve accused persons.
Significantly, after the alteration of charges, no further examination of witnesses was conducted, and the accused were not given an opportunity to recall or cross-examine the prosecution witnesses regarding the amended charges.
On February 26, 2003, the Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, convicted Appellant No. 1 under Section 498A/304B of the IPC and sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. Appellant Anuradha Shaw was convicted under Section 498A/34 of the IPC. Aggrieved by this judgment, the appellants approached the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Mr. Milon Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants, argued that the conviction was unsustainable in law. He contended that the Trial Court altered the charges to include Section 304B (dowry death) and Section 34 (common intention) after the evidence was closed but failed to provide the accused an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses on these new charges.
Mr. Mukherjee submitted:
“At first the charge was framed by the Trial Court under Section 498A/304 of the Indian Penal Code… but astonishingly after amending of the charge they did not get any opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses on the amended/altered charge.”
He further argued that the written complaint contained “no whisper regarding demand of dowry,” and such allegations appeared for the first time in the evidence of PW1 before the Court.
Ms. Faria Hossain, learned Advocate for the State, opposed the appeal, submitting that the evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly established that the appellants inflicted physical and mental torture upon the deceased for dowry, leading to her unnatural death within seven years of marriage.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
Justice Prasenjit Biswas noted that the initial trial proceeded on charges of cruelty and culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 IPC). The subsequent alteration to Section 304B IPC introduced distinct ingredients, such as the death occurring within seven years of marriage and the victim being subjected to cruelty “soon before her death” in connection with dowry demands.
The Court emphasized the mandate of Section 217 of the Cr.P.C., which provides that whenever a charge is altered or added, the prosecutor and the accused shall be allowed to recall or re-summon any witness who has already been examined.
The Court observed:
“It is settled position of law that whenever there is altercation/amendment of charge, the parties must be afforded a fair and effective opportunity to meet the case arisen out of such altered/amended charge.”
The Court held that the denial of such an opportunity strikes at the root of procedural fairness:
“Any conviction recorded on the basis of an altered charge without granting such opportunity would be vulnerable on the ground of prejudice and violation of the principles of natural justice.”
The High Court pointed out that the evidence originally led with reference to Section 498A/304 IPC “remained wholly untested against the essential ingredients of altered charge,” particularly the requirement of proof of “dowry demand.”
Justice Biswas stated:
“This Court holds that the trial has been vitiated on account of procedural omission. Any conviction that may have been found on evidences not tested against the altered/amended charges cannot be sustained in law.”
Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated February 26, 2003.
The Court ordered:
“The matter is remanded back to the Trial Court from the stage of alteration of the charge, with a clear direction that the accused persons to be afforded a full and effective opportunity to recall and cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and thereafter for the trial to proceed in accordance with law.”
The Trial Court has been requested to expedite the disposal of the case, preferably within six months.
Case Details:
Case Title: Manik Shaw & Ors. -Versus- The State of West Bengal
Case No: C.R.A. 77 of 2003
Bench: Justice Prasenjit Biswas
