Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CRL.) NO.627  OF 2009 IN  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1731 OF 2008

Reshma Devi & Anr. … Appellants

Vs.

State of  Pubjab & Anr. … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. V. Raveendran J.,  

Petitioners (accused 2 and 1 respectively) and three others were tried  

for  an  offence  punishable  under  304-B of  Indian  Penal  Code (for  short,  

‘IPC’)  relating  to  the  death  of  Anju  Rani,  wife  of  accused  No.1  -  Jolly  

Singla. Accused No.2 (Reshma Devi) is the mother of Accused No.1; third  

and fourth accused are the brothers of accused No.1; and fifth accused is the  

wife of the third accused. The Sessions Court, Patiala by its judgment dated  

13.6.2002 convicted all the five accused under section 304-B of IPC and  

sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay a

fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default undergo further imprisonment of eight  

months.  Two appeals  were  filed  against  the  said  judgment  –  Crl.Appeal  

No.992-SB of 2002 by accused nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and Crl.Appeal No. 1012-

SB of 2002 by accused no.4. Both appeals were heard together and disposed  

of  by  the  Madhya  Pradesh  High  Court  by  common  judgment  dated  

31.10.2006. The High Court acquitted accused 3, 4 and 5. It dismissed the  

appeal  filed  by  the  accused  1  and  2  (petitioners  2  and  1  herein)  and  

confirmed  their  conviction  and  sentence.  The  High  Court  while  so  

dismissing  the  appeal  of  accused  1  and  2  observed  as  follows  in  the  

operative portion of the judgment:  

“Jolly  Singla  is  stated  to  have  already  undergone  imprisonment and released”.

“Accused-appellant  Reshma  Devi  shall  surrender  to  undergo the remaining sentence. Her bail bonds are cancelled.”  

2. The said judgment was challenged by the second respondent herein  

(father of the deceased, the complainant).  In the first part of the Special  

Leave Petition, the State was made the first respondent and accused 1, 3 and  

5 were shown as respondents 2 to 4. In the second part of the  Special Leave  

Petition, the State was shown as the first respondent and accused no.4 was  

shown as the second respondent. The second accused (Reshma Devi) was  

not  impleaded as a respondent  before this  court,  presumably because the  

2

High Court had affirmed her conviction and sentence and directed her to  

surrender to undergo the remaining sentence. The appellant before this court  

had thus no grievance in regard to the High Court judgment in so far as  

Reshma Devi (accused No.2) was concerned.  

3. A Division Bench of  this  Court  presided over by C.K. Thakker J.,  

granted leave and allowed the appeals in part by judgment dated 5.11.2008.  

This Court held that there was no infirmity in the reasoning of the High  

Court as also the conclusions therein and therefore, there was no ground to  

interfere with the order of acquittal recorded in regard to accused 3 to 5. This  

Court also held that the dismissal of the appeal filed by accused no.1 and  

accused no.2 by the High Court by confirming the order of conviction and  

sentence did not call for interference. This Court however further observed :  

“In our opinion, however, the High Court was wrong in observing that the  respondent no.2 herein (accused no.1) husband of Anju Devi had already  undergone  the  sentence.……..When  we  asked  the  learned  counsel  for  Respondent 2 as to how the High Court recorded the above finding, he  could not give satisfactory reply on what basis it was  stated before the  High Court that Accused 1 husband had already undergone imprisonment  and was released. We, therefore, asked the learned advocate for the State  of Punjab to file an affidavit stating the basis of the statement and release  of  Accused  1.  Such  affidavit  was  filed  on  behalf  of  the  State  and the  learned Government Pleader stated that it was as per the Order dated 14-8- 2002 issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs  and Justice (Jails Branch) that Accused 1 was treated as having undergone  imprisonment for seven years.”  

3

It then examined the said Government Order dated 14.8.2002 referred in the  

affidavit and held as follows :  

“21. The order was issued by the Government of Punjab in exercise of  power conferred by Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  and Article 161 of the Constitution. Clause A provides for remission of  sentence of imprisonment for life in certain cases. It is, however, expressly  stated that the benefits referred to in that part of the order would not apply  to certain cases. The said head reads thus:

“These benefits are not admissible in the following cases.”  

Sub-clause (vii) of that part deals with offences under Section 304-B IPC  i.e. a dowry death.

22. It  is,  therefore,  clear  that  in  case  of  dowry  death,  an  offence  punishable  under  Section  304-B  IPC,  the  benefit  of  remission  of  the  government order does not apply. If it is so, in our opinion, the benefit  could not be granted to Respondent 2 husband. Hence, even if Accused 1  or Accused 2 had been released before completion of seven years, such  action could not be said to be legal and lawful. If it is so, obviously, the  appeal deserves to be allowed to that extent.

23. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed and  is allowed by directing Respondent 2 Jolly Singla to surrender to custody  and to remain in jail for a period of seven years which he had to undergo  as per the order of the trial court. If such benefit is granted to Accused 2,  she also had to surrender to custody till the period of seven years is over.

24. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent.”

3. Aggrieved by the directions in paras 22 and 23, accused nos.2 and 1  

(petitioners 1 and 2) have filed this review petition inter alia contending as  

follows :  

4

(i) Reshma Devi - Accused no.2 (petitioner no.1 herein) had not been  

impleaded as a party in the criminal appeal filed by the complainant before  

this Court. Therefore, this Court ought not to have made any observation or  

order  adverse to her  interest.  Consequently,  the observation that  “if  such  

benefit is granted to accused no.2, she had to surrender to custody till the  

period of seven years is over” is liable to be deleted.  

(ii) The  Government  Order  dated  14.8.2002  had  been misread  by  this  

Court  and  the  observation  that  the  benefits  of  remission  under  the  said  

notification was not available to accused 1 and 2 was contrary to the said  

Government order.

4. There  is  considerable  force  in  both  the  contentions.  Accused  no.2  

(petitioner no.1) was not a party to the appeal before this court. But while  

disposing of the appeal, this Court directed that if she had been granted the  

benefit  under  the  Government  Order  dated  14.8.2002,  she  also  has  to  

surrender  to  custody till  the  period of  seven years  is  over.  Obviously as  

accused no.2 was not a party and as she was not heard, no observation could  

have been made in the judgment of this Court nor any direction could have  

been given to her detriment, that too in regard to a matter which was not the  

subject matter of the appeal.  

5

5. We may next consider the second contention with reference to the  

Government  Order  dated  14.8.2002.  The  said  Government  Order  dated  

14.8.2002 contains two parts.  Part A relates to  “Remission of balance of   

sentence  of  imprisonment  for  life  as  on  15.8.2002” in  regard  to  four  

categories  of  prisoners.  The  Government  order  provides  that  the  benefit  

under  Part  A  would  not  be  admissible  in  respect  of  eight  categories  of  

offences enumerated therein, including serial no.(vii) pertaining to “offences  

under section 304-B of IPC that is a dowry death”. The said provision that  

the benefit of remission is not available in regard to offence under section  

304-B  of  IPC  is  with  reference  to  remission  of  balance  of  sentence  of   

imprisonment for life  under Part A. Therefore, Part A of the Government  

Order  dated  14.8.2002  relating  to  remission  of  balance  of  sentence  of  

imprisonment for life and the exceptions thereto are wholly inapplicable in  

regard to cases where the sentence is not imprisonment for life. In this case,  

the sentence was not for imprisonment for life. The sentence was rigorous  

imprisonment for seven years. Part B of the said Government Order relates  

to special remission of one year to prisoners who have been convicted by the   

courts of criminal jurisdiction in the State of Punjab and confined in jail as   

on 15.8.2002. The said remission under Part B is made inapplicable to nine  

types of offences enumerated therein. The exclusion list does not contain or  

6

refer  to  offences  under  section  304-B  of  the  Code.  Thus,  the  special  

remission of  one year  under the Government Order  dated 14.8.2002 was  

available  to  persons  convicted for  a  term of  seven years  for  the  offence  

under  section  304-B of  IPC.  This  court,  while  disposing of  the  criminal  

appeal, under the erroneous assumption that the case fell under Part A and  

not Part B of the Government Order dated 14.8.2002, had observed that the  

benefit of the said Government Order was not available to accused 1 and 2,  

overlooking the fact that benefit of remission under Part B thereof was in  

fact available.

6. In  view  of  the  above,  the  judgment  dated  5.11.2008  in  Criminal  

Appeal No.1731/2008 is reviewed and  paras 18 to 24 of the said judgment  

are deleted and instead the following is added: “The appeals are therefore  

dismissed.” If accused nos.(1) and (2) had been extended the benefit of Part  

B of Government Order dated 14.8.2002, the same shall not be disturbed.

…………………………..J. (R V Raveendran)

New Delhi; …………………………J. August 25, 2010. (D K Jain)                   

7