Holding

A revision court cannot reduce a sentence without recording reasons and without a proper consideration of the facts; the absence of a challenge to conviction is not a sufficient ground for sentence reduction.

Summary

The appellant, Narsingh Prasad Singh, filed a criminal appeal after his daughter was brutally beaten with a burning wooden stick by the respondents, Raj Kumar and others, for alleged dowry demand. The trial court convicted the respondents under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each to one year of rigorous imprisonment. The appellate court upheld the conviction of one accused and acquitted the other, but the Allahabad High Court, on a revision petition, reduced the sentence to the period already spent in jail, reasoning that the accused had not contested the conviction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by reducing the sentence without recording reasons, without examining the facts, and merely because the counsel did not challenge the conviction. It emphasized that a reduction of sentence in revision requires a proper application of mind and justification. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order, and directed the High Court to reconsider the revision afresh.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can reduce a sentence in a revision petition without recording reasons and without assessing the facts of the case.
Whether the mere fact that the accused did not challenge the conviction constitutes a valid ground for sentence reduction.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 498-A

Subjects

dowry demandSection 498-Asentence reductionrevision jurisdictionrigorous imprisonmentSupreme Court

Judgment

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
accused persons lVith a burning wooden stick-Trial court convicted the
c 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
with a burning wooden stick. The trial court convicted the respondents-
E 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.

Allowing the appeal, the Court 1- •
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
984 I
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 A
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]
B
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.
c
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 D

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
E
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. F

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
G
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- H
986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] 2 S.C.R.

A 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 fine to further undergo
RI for 3 months each, by holding that accused persons asked Kusum to bring
money from her father's house and when she could not airange for money,
all the accused mercilessly beat and plauned to bum her with a burning
B
wooden stick.

Against that order, accused prefened Criminal Appeal 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
c 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 tl1e High Court of Allahabad.

The Revision Application was heard by Mr. 8 .K. Rathi, J ., who by
cryptic order allowed the revision by holding as under:
n
"Applicant no.I is the husband and applicants no.2 and 3 are
fatl1er-in-law and mother-in-law. The learned counsel for the appli-
cants has not challenged the conviction and has argued only on the
question of sentence.

E In the circumstances, by maintaining the conviction for the
offence under Section 498-A !PC, I modify tl1e sentence and they are
sentenced to undergo RI for tl1e period for which they had been in
jail and a fine of Rs. I 000 each. They shall be released forthwith 011
deposit of fine."

F 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 m0cke1y
of justice. Without appreciating any evidence and recording any reasons, the
High Court modified the sentence only on the grow1d that the lean_ied counsel
for the respondents has not challenged the conviction and has argued only
G 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
H case, before exercising its revisional jurisdiction, the Court ought to have
N. P. S}NGH v. RAJ KUMAR [SHAH, J.] 987
considered the facts and applied its mind as to whether it was a fit case for A
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 selllcence, 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
B
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.Th~ High Court to decide the revision application
afresh on merits. C

V.S.S. Appeal allowed.

J