LexHARI OM versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c . - (2014] 11 S.C.R. 436 HARi OM v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER (Criminal Appeal No. 1167 of 2011) OCTOBER 31, 2014 [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] Penal Code1860: ss.304-B and 498-A - Dowry death - Demand of dowry and harassment of bride - Suicide committed by bride after about one month of marriage - Conviction of appellant- husband and life sentence affirmed by High Court - Courts 0 below were justified in holding the appellant guilty of committing the offences punishable uls 304-B read with s.498- B, which caused death of the bride - However, as the case does not fall in the category of a "rare 'case" so as to award to appellant life imprisonment, the sentence is reduced to 10 E years RI - Sentence/Sentencing. Sentence/Sentencing: Conviction of husband u/ss 3048 and 498-A - Sentence - Court could award sentence in exercise of its discretion F between seven years to life imprisonment depending upon the facts of each case - In no case it could be less than seven years and that extreme punishment of life term should be awarded in "rare cases" but not in every case - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.304-B and 498-A. G H Allowing the appeal in part, the Court HELD: 1.1. The courts below were justified in holding the appellant guilty of committing offences punishable uls 304~8 read with s.498-B IPC, which 436 • • HARi OM v. STATE OF HARYANA 437 caused death of the bride. Therefore, the conviction of A the appellant u/ss 304-B and 498-A IPC is upheld. [para 19 and 27) [443-H; 444-A; 446-D] 1.2. Under s.304-B, the court can award sentence in exercise of its discretion between seven years to life 8 imprisonment depending upon the facts of each case; in no case it can be less than seven years; and the extreme punishment of life term should be awarded in "rare cases" but not in every case. [para 21) [444-D] Hem Chand Vs. State of Haryana 1994 (4) Suppl. SCR C 295 = (1994) 6 SCC 727; State of Karnataka Vs. M. V. Manjunathegowda and Anr. 2003(1) SCR 21 = (2003) 2 SCC 188, G. V. Siddaramesh Vs. State of Kamataka, 2010 (2) SCR 380 = (201 O) 3 sec 152 - relied on. 1.3. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances, the instant case, does not fall in the category of a "rare case" as envisaged by this Court so D as to award to the appellant the life imprisonment. That apart, while awarding life imprisonment, the courts below E did not assign any reasons. The ends of justice would meet, if the sentence of the appellant is reduced from life imprisonment to that of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. Ordered accordingly. [para 25] [445-H; 446-A, G] Case Law Reference: 1994 (4) Suppl. SCR 295 relied on 2003(1) SCR 21 relied on 2010 (2) SCR 380 relied on para 22 para 23 para 24 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1167 of 2011. From the Judgment & Order dated 14.05.2010 of the High F G H 438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 11 S.C.R. • A Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 1901-DB of 2004. B Shekhar Naphade, Harikesh Singh, J.B. Mudgil, Atul Bhuchar, Satyendra Kumar for the Appellant. Devinder Pratap Singh, AAG, Dr. Sudhir Bisla, Ramesh Kumar, Dr. Monika Gusain for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the accused, Hari Om (A-1), against the judgment and order dated 14.05.2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal no. 190- DB of 2004, which in turn, arises out of judgment dated D 31.01.2004/04.02.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind in Session Case no. 57/23.12.2002 and Session Trial No. 5 of 13.02.2003. 2. By impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant (A-1) and upheld his conviction E and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 304- B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") and allowed the appeals filed by the co-accused namely, Subhash, Dharam Pal, Ram Chander and Chander Kala (A-2 F to A-5) and set aside their conviction and sentence. 3. So far as this appeal is concerned, we are only concerned with the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant - Hari Om (A-1 ). 4. Facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal need to G be mentioned in brief. 5. As per the prosecution case, Poonam - a young girl having post-graduate degree to her cre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.