DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Subject appeal impugns judgment on conviction dated 05.12.2011 and order on sentence dated 17.12.2011 whereby the appellant has been convicted of an offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and sentenced to undergo 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment besides payment of fine of Rs.2000/-.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a charge was framed against the appellant under Section 304B/498A/34 of the IPC. While the appellant stood acquitted of all the charges, the Trial Court has convicted the appellant of an offence under Section 306 IPC. Learned counsel submits that the Trial Court erred in not appreciating that no charge under Section 306 IPC was framed and the appellant was not given any opportunity to defend himself with regard to the offence under Section 306 IPC and as such the appellant could not have been convicted for an offence for which he was not charged.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that even if assuming the appellant could have been punished for an offence under Section 306 IPC, even though not specifically charged, the evidence on record does not substantiate the offence under Section 306 IPC and as such the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained even on merits of the matter.