VIRENDRA KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P.
Conviction under Section 306 IPC is permissible without a specific charge thereunder if the circumstances were put to the accused, evidence established the elements of the offence, and no prejudice resulted, by application of Sections 222(2) and 464 Cr.P.C.
- Parties
- Appellant: Virendra Kumar; Respondent: State of U.P.
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 16 January 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Abetment of Suicide, Dowry Harassment, Conviction Under Minor Offence, Propriety of Conviction Without Specific Charge, Effect of Non Framing of Specific Charge
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Virendra Kumar
Appellant
State of U.P.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether conviction under Section 306 IPC is permissible in absence of a specific charge when the accused was charged under Section 302 IPC
- 2 Effect of Sections 222(2) and 464 of Cr.P.C. on conviction for a minor offence without specific charge
- 3 Whether presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act is applicable
Ratio Decidendi
Conviction under Section 306 IPC is permissible without a specific charge thereunder if the circumstances were put to the accused, evidence established the elements of the offence, and no prejudice resulted, by application of Sections 222(2) and 464 Cr.P.C.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Conviction under Section 306 IPC confirmed
- No interference with High Court's decision
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment