NARSINGH PRASAD SINGH

v. -{

RAJ KUMAR @ PAPPU AND ORS.

APRIL4, 2001

[M.B. SHAH AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860:

11-

Section 498-A-Dowry demand-Complainant's daughter beaten by the c accused persons lVith a burning wooden stick-Trial court convicted the accused and sentenced them to undergo rigo1vus imprisonment for one year- Appellate cou1t acquitted one of the accused and confinned the conviction of the other accused-But High Court, in revision, reduced the sentence to the period. the accused was in jail-Conctness of-Held : Before exercising revisional jurisdiction, High Court ought to consider facts and apply its mind D for reducing the sentence-Not raising of any argument for acquittal is hardly any ground for reduction of sen_tence-High Court di1cted to decide revision application afresh on merits.

The appellant's daughter was beaten hy the respondents-accused

E with a burning wooden stick. The trial court convicted the respondentsaccused under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence in respect of one accused and acquitted the other accused. But the High Court, in revision, modified the sentence to the period spent in jail on the ground that the respondent-accused bad not F challenged the conviction and bad argued only on the question of sentence.

Hence this appeal.

1- • Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD : t. The High Court has modified the sentence \vithout record- G ing any reasons and without considering the crime prevalent in the society for unjustified demand of dowry. In any case, before exercising its revisional jurisdiction, the Court ought to have considered the facts and applied its mind as to whether it was a fit case for exercising its revisional jurisdiction and for reducing the sentence. It has also been pointed out that without ,..,_

H verifying the fact that the respondents have not undergone any sentence, the

I 984

N. P. SINGH v. RAJ KUMAR [SHAH, J.] 985

Court oas passed the order of reducing the sentence for the period for which they had heen in jail. This Court has reiterated in a series of cases that it is the duty of the Court to pass appropriate order of sentence and not raising of any argument by the accused for acquittal is hardly any ground for reduction of sentence. Hence, the High Court is directed to decide the revision application afresh on merits. [986-H; 987-A-C]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 453 )( of 2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 4.8.2000 of the Allahabad High Court in Cr!. R. No. 1548 of 2000.

V.K. Shukla and K.K. Mohan for the Appellant.

K.B. Rohtagi, Mahesh Kasana and Ms. Apama Rohatgi Jain for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SHAH, J. Leave granted.

It is virtually a tnatter of shame to the civilisation that indiscriminate attacks and violence are directed against married -women in certain quarters including so-called educated for obnoxious and anti-social demand of dowry and the accused are let off for various reasons. Result is violence against wo1nen continues unabated as law looses its deterrent etiect. In some cases, flee bite sentence 'till rising of the Court' or 'sentence already undergone' is awarded without verifying whether the accused has undergone any sentence.

The prosecution case in nutshell is that - on J .4.1994 at 11 a.m. Bilasa Devi and Neelain, motlier in law and sister in law respectively of Kusum Kuma1i started beating complainant's daughter with a burning wooden stick and she remained lying for some time at in-laws house. Thereafter, the mother-in-law again said 'bum her face', on which Kusum got scared and ran away from the place and reached the house of her 'Bua' (father's sister) at about 4 p.m. From there, message was sent to her parents' house. l11ereafter her father-PW! reached Kanpur and gave a written complaint at the Police Station through his son. After appreciating the entire evidence, by judgment and order dated 12.11.1999, !st Additional Chief Judicial Magis-

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

(2001] 2 S.C.R.

trate, Kanpur City convicted respondents for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the !PC each and sentenced them to suffer RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000, in default in payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months each, by holding that accused persons asked Kusum to bring money from her father's house and when she could not airange for money, all the accused mercilessly beat and plauned to bum her with a burning wooden stick.

Against that order, accused prefened Criminal Appeal No.96 of 1999 which was heard by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur City, who after appreciating the entire evidence dismissed the appeal filed by the present respondents but allowed the appeal of Smt. Neelam and set aside her conviction order. That order was challenged by the respondents by filing Criminal Revision No.1548 of 2000 in tl1e High Court of Allahabad.

The Revision Application was heard by Mr. 8 .K. Rathi, J ., who by cryptic order allowed the revision by holding as under:

"Applicant no.I is the husband and applicants no.2 and 3 are fatl1er-in-law and mother-in-law. The learned counsel for the applicants has not challenged the conviction and has argued only on the question of sentence.

In the circumstances, by maintaining the conviction for the offence under Section 498-A !PC, I modify tl1e sentence and they are sentenced to undergo RI for tl1e period for which they had been in jail and a fine of Rs. I 000 each. They shall be released forthwith 011 deposit of fine."

That order is under challenge. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that the order passed by the High Court is nothing but a m0cke1y of justice. Without appreciating any evidence and recording any reasons, the High Court modified the sentence only on the grow1d that the lean_ied counsel for the respondents has not challenged the conviction and has argued only G on the question of sentence.

In our view, there is much substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is apparent that the High Court has modified the sentence without recording any reasons and without considering the crime prevalent in the society for unjustified demand of dowry. In any H case, before exercising its revisional jurisdiction, the Court ought to have

N. P. S}NGH v. RAJ KUMAR [SHAH, J.] 987

considered the facts and applied its mind as to whether it was a fit case for A exercise of its revisional jurisdiction and for reducing the sentence. It has also been pointed out that without verifying the fact that respondents have not undergone any selllcence, the Court has passed the order of reducing the sentence for the period for which they had been in jail. This Court has reiterated in a series of cases that it is the duty of the Court to pass appropriate order of sentence and not raising of any argument by counsel for the accused for acquittal is hardly any ground for reduction of sentence.

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside.Th~ High Court to decide the revision application

afresh on merits.

V.S.S.

Appeal allowed.