SHAMNSAHEB M MULTTANI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While dealing with the facts of this case the question came up whether a conviction under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code can be awarded when the charge was for the offence under Section 302 Section 394, 395 only. Our attention has been drawn to two conflicting decisions of this Court, though the alternative conviction proposed in both the decisions was under Section 306 Section 394, 395 . A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Lakhjit Singh V/s. State of Punjab has held that even without a charge under Section 306 Section 394, 395 the accused can nevertheless be convicted under that section when the original charge was for the offence under Section 302 Section 394, 395 . In a subsequent decision rendered by another Bench of two Judges of this Court in Sangaraboina Sreenu V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh without their Lordships' attention being drawn to earlier decision, it has been held that when the charge contained only Section 302 Section 394, 395 a conviction under Section 306 Section 394, 395 was impermissible.

(2.) The aforesaid conflict of approach would cause difficulties for this Bench of two Judges to decide this case, and therefore, we deem it proper that this case is heard by a larger Bench. Registry will place this matter for orders of the Hon ble C.J.

(3.) Shri Uday Umesh Lalit, Advocate is requested to assist the Court as amicus curiae when the matter is heard by a larger Bench.