NARSINGH PRASAD SINGH versus RAJ KUMAR @ PAPPU AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 984 · Decided: 04-04-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NARSINGH PRASAD SINGH 
v. 
-{ 
RAJ KUMAR @ PAPPU AND ORS. 
APRIL4, 2001 
B 
[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-Con~ctness 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 di1~cted 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 respondents-
accused under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them 
~ 
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellate court con-
firmed 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 
II 
.. 
r 
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 reduc-
tion 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 -w·omen 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 sen-
tence. 
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-
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
n 
E 
F 
986 
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 fi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.