LexSAVARALA SAI SREE versus GURRAMKONDA VASUDEVARAO & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 1 S.C.R. 1 SAVARALA SAi SREE v. GURRAMKONDA VASUDEVARAO & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2014) JANUARY 2, 2014 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: A B s. 3 - Conviction - Sentence of imprisonment for 3 c months and fine of Rs. 30001- imposed by trial court - Reduced by High Court to period already undergone (4 days) - Held: Imposition of sentence is in the realm of discretion of the court and unless the sentence is found to be grossly inadequate, the appellate court would not be justified in interfering with the 0 discretionary order of sentence - In the instant case, the minimum sentence fixed by legislature is five years, however, the court in an appropriate case after recording the reason may award the sentence lesser than five years, but fine shall not be less than Rs. 15, 0001- or the amount of the value of such E dowry, whichever is more - Without recording any reason whatsoever it was not permissible for trial court to award sentence less than five years - Awarding of punishment.of 3 months by trial court was hopelessly disproportionate particularly in view of the fact that no mitigating circumstance has been pointed out by trial court - High Court failed in its F duty to take up the matter in its revisional power uls 401 r!w s.386(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and enhance the punishment commensurate to the offence committed by the accused - High Court grossly erred in reducing the sentence to four days - Sentence is set aside G and the matter remanded back to the High Court to determine the quantum of punishment - Code of Criminal Code, 1973 - s.401 rlw s.386 (e) - Sentence/Sentencing. 1 H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 1 S.C.R. A State of UP. v. Shri Kishan AIR 2005 SC 1250; Chinnadurai v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1996 SC 546; Sadhupati Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2012 (6) SCR 1143 =AIR 2012 SC 3242; Ajahar Ali v. State of West Bengal (2013) 10 SCC 31; State of Rajasthan v. Vinod B Kumar 2012 (6) SCR 1 =AIR 2012 SC 2301 - relied on. c D E Ram Sanjiwan Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar AIR 1996 SC 3265 - referred to. Case Law Reference: AIR 2005 SC 1250 relied on para 10 AIR 1996 SC 546 relied on para 10 2012 (6)SCR1143 relied on para 10 (2013) 10 sec 31 relied on para 10 2012 (6) SCR 1 relied on para 11 AIR 1996 SC 3265 referred to para 12 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2014. From the Judgment & Order dated 21.02.2011 of the High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad in CRLRC No. 386 of 2011. F V. Sridhar Reddy, V.N. Raghupathy for the Appellant. G H A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, M.A. Chinnasamy, K. Krishna Kumar, A. Senthil Kumar, D. Mahesh Babu, Mayur Shah, Amjid Maqbool, Amit K. Nain for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER 1. Leave granted. .SAVARALA SAL SREE v GURRAMKONDA · 3 VASCJDEVARAO & ORS. i The facts and ·the circ·umstances involved in the case A has shocked the conscience-o'f the Court and we take a serious note that neitt:lE!r the trial court. nor the High Court proceeded in accordance -with law rather acted on 'their ·own whims and fancies as if th~. courts are not bound to follow the. law made by the competent legislatlirfl. B The tri~I Court convicted·.the r~spondents·.under Section 498-A cl.the· Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC) and awarded _the 'Sentence of three ·(3~ years and imposed a ;fine of ·Rs.,2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) arid in case of non pa¥ment -of fin.e, a lurther sen_tence to u·ndergo simple C imprisonme·nt for a·perioi;I of three (3) months. They were also convicted under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition .fl.ct, 1961 (for short 'Act, 1961') and imposed a sentence for a penoci of3 mo.nfhs each and to·pay a fine.of Rs.3000/-(Rupe·es three thousand only} each and in-default of payment, they were D sentenped to undergo simple imprison'ment for a period of one month of each of the offence . 3 .. Aggrieve~. the respondents filed appeal before the Session~ Court. The first appellate court dealt with the case. E Relevant part of the order runs as under: "20. On recording findings in .the aforesaid points this court firfds there was no legall,y° acceptable evidence for convicting A 1 for the offence U/s 498-A IPC and A3 to AS fo.r the offence U/s. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. So, F ~ppellants 3'to 5 are entitled for acquittal. Appellants 1 and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.