DINESH SETH Vs. STATE OF NCT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of Delhi High Court whereby the appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) but was convicted under Section 498A IPC and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) The facts

(3.) Shri K. T. S. Tulsi, senior counsel appearing for the appellant, assailed the impugned judgment on two counts. He argued that the appellants conviction under Section 498A IPC is liable to be set aside because he was tried for an offence under Section 304B read with 34 IPC and not under Section 498A IPC. Learned senior counsel submitted that in the absence of a specific charge under Section 498A IPC, the High Court could not have convicted the appellant under that section because he did not get opportunity to defend himself. Shri Tulsi further argued that after having discarded the testimony of PW-1, PW-6, and PW-7 on the issue of harassment, cruely and demand of dowry and acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 304B IPC, the High Court could not have relied upon the same evidence for the purpose of convicting him under Section 498A IPC. In Supplort of his argu ments, Shri Tulsi referred to the judgments of this Court in State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal and Another (1994) 1 SCC 73, Himachal Pradesh Admn. vs. Shri Om Prakash (1972) 2 SCR 765, Ramakant Rai vs. Madan Rai and Others (JT 2003 (2) Suppl. SC 344, Gokaraju Venkatanarasa Raju vs. State of A. P. (1993) 4 Suppl. SCC 191) and Shivanand Mallappa Koti vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 8 SCALE 408). Learned senior counsel then submitted that the judgments of this Court in Pyare Lal vs. State of Haryana (1997) 11 SCC 552) and Satpal vs. State of Haryana (1998) 5 SCC 687) on which reliance has been placed by the High Court for convicting the appellant under Section 498A IPC are clearly distinguishable because in neither of those cases question similar to the one arising in this appeal was considered.