http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 453  of  2001

PETITIONER: NARSINGH PRASAD SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAJ KUMAR @ PAPPU & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       04/04/2001

BENCH: M.B.  Shah & S.N.  Variava

JUDGMENT:

L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J J U D G M E N T

Shah, J.

Leave granted.

   It  is  virtually a matter of shame to the  civilization 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 women continues unabated as  law looses  its  deterrent  effect.  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 thaton 1.4.1994 at 11 a.m.  Bilasa Devi and Neelam, mother in law and sister in law   respectively   of  Kusum    Kumari   started   beating complainants  daughter with a burning wooden stick and  she remained  lying for some time at in-laws house.  Thereafter, the mother-in-law again said burn her face, on which Kusum got scared and ran away from the place and reached the house of  her Bua (fathers sister) at about 4 p.m.  From there, message  was  sent  to her parents house.   Thereafter  her father-PW1  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, 1st Additional  Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur City convicted respondents for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the  IPC  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 fathers house and when she could not arrange for money, all the  accused mercilessly beat and planned to burn her with a burning wooden stick.

   Against  that  order, accused preferred Criminal  Appeal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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 the High Court of Allahabad.

   The  Revision Application was heard by Mr.  B.K.  Rathi, J.,  who by cryptic order allowed the revision by holding as under:  - Applicant no.1 is the husband and applicants no.2 and  3  are  father-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 IPC, I modify the  sentence and  they  are  sentenced to undergo RI for the  period  for which  they  had been in jail and a fine of Rs.1000/-  each. They shall be released forthwith on 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 mockery of justice.  Without  appreciating any  evidence  and  recording any reasons,  the  High  Court modified  the  sentence only on the ground that the  learned counsel   for  the  respondents   has  not  challenged   the conviction and has argued only 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  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 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 sentence,  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.  The High Court to decide the revision application afresh on merits.