KAMALADASS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the appellant is directed against the judgment convicting the appellant under Section 304-B, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 7 years.

(2.) The short point which arises for consideration by this Court is this. The charge under Section 302, I.P.C. was framed against the appellant for having caused the death of the deceased, wife of the appellant, by pouring acid into her mouth. After trial, on taking into consideration of the materials, particularly the evidence of PW-2, who speaks about the dowry demand, the trialCourt concluded that the appellant was liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 304-B, I.P.C. and not under Section 302, I.P.C.

(3.) Mr. Govi Ganesan, the counsel for the appellant, would submit that when the charge under Section 304-B, I.P.C. was not framed against the appellant, the conviction under the said section cannot be sustained and therefore, the matter could be remitted back to the trial Court for framing the charge under Section 304-B, I.P.C. and to give opportunity to the appellant to rebut the presumption enshrined in Section 304-B, I.P.C.