Supreme Court of India
SAVARALA SAI SREEversusGURRAMKONDA VASUDEVARAO & ORS.
- Citation
- 2014 INSC 897
- Decided
- 2 January 2014
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- B S CHAUHANS A BOBDE
Holding
A sentence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act must be at least five years unless the court records adequate special reasons; the trial court’s three‑month sentence and the High Court’s reduction to four days were unlawful.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined the conviction of respondents under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The trial court had sentenced them to three months' imprisonment, far below the statutory minimum of five years, without recording any special reasons. The High Court further reduced the sentence to four days on revision. The Court held that the minimum sentence of five years can be deviated from only if the court records adequate and special reasons, which the trial court failed to do, and that the High Court erred in exercising its revisional power to reduce the sentence. Consequently, the Court set aside the sentence and remanded the matter to the High Court to determine an appropriate quantum of punishment in line with the Act. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- The trial court's power to award a sentence less than the statutory minimum of five years under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act without recording special reasons.
- The High Court's authority to reduce the sentence on revision under CrPC Sections 401 and 386(e).
- Whether the appellate court may interfere with a sentencing order that is not grossly inadequate.
- The appropriate quantum of punishment for an offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 386(e), s. 401
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961s. 3, s. 4
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 498A
Subjects
Dowry Prohibition Actminimum sentencesentencing discretionCriminal Procedure CodeSection 3Section 498Aproportionalityappellate review
Judgment
[2014] 1 S.C.R. 1
SAVARALA SAi SREE A
v.
GURRAMKONDA VASUDEVARAO & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2014)
JANUARY 2, 2014
B
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.]
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961:
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.
Ram Sanjiwan Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar AIR 1996
SC 3265 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
c AIR 2005 SC 1250 relied on para 10
AIR 1996 SC 546 relied on para 10
2012 (6)SCR1143 relied on para 10
D (2013) 10 sec 31 relied on para 10
2012 (6) SCR 1 relied on para 11
AIR 1996 SC 3265 referred to para 12
E 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.
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.
G The following Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
H
.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
· 2 are liable for pLJnishment only U/s.3 of Dowry Prohibition
Act for having accepted three Demand Drafts and not
explaining the same though burden is on them as per
Sec.8~. G
21. In the resuJi, the appeal is partly allowed. 1st Appellant
is acquitted of the charge U/s.498-A IPC, but his conviction
for the U/s.3_ of Dowry Prohibition Act is confirmed including
the sentence. The conviction of 2nd appellant U/s.3 of H
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 1 S.C.R.
A Dowry Prohibition Act is confirmed including the sentence.
The appeal is allowed with regard to the appellants 3 to 5
and sentence imposed on them is set aside. The fine
amount paid by them shall be refunded after appeal time.
The fine amount paid by 1st Appellant .for the offence. U/
B s.498-A IPC shall be refunded to him after appeal time."
4. Thus, conviction and sentence of Respondent Nos.1.· and
2 under Section 3 of the Act 1961 was maintained, howev!'lr,
they were acquitted for the offence under Section 498A of the.
IPC and Section 4 of the Act 1961.
c
5. In the Revision, the High Court has dealt with th~ case
in a very cryptic manner as the learned counsel appearing for
the respondents did not argue the case on merit rather pleaded
for mercy and requested to reduce:the sentence taking a lenient
D view. The High Court reduced the sentence to 4 days,. as the
sc;iid sentence had already been served/undergor:ie by them.
6. Hence thls appeal by the complainant-appellant
Sarvarala Sai Sree.
E 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record. So far as the conviction of the respondent
under Section 3 of the Act, 1961 is concerned, there is no
reason for us to interfere with the same. Thus, the. question
. remains restricted only to the quantum of punishment. Section
F 3 of the Act, 1961 reads ijs under: ·
"3. Penalty for giving or taking d'bwry - (1). If ahy
person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes
or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not
G
be less than five years and with the fine which shall
not be less than fift~en thousand rupees or the amount
of the value of such dowry, whichever is mor~.
Provided that the Court, for adequate and special
H reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a
SAVARALA SAi SREE v. GURRAMKONDA 5
VASUDEVARAO & ORS.
sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years." A
(Emphasis added)
8. In the instant case, the minimum sentence fixed by the
legislature is five years, however, the court in an appropriate
case after recording the reason may award the sentence lesser B
than five years, but the fine shall not be less than Rs.15,000/-
or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more.
9. In view of the above, we are not able to understand as
under what circumstances without recording any reason -c
whatsoever it was permissible for the trial Court to award the
sentence less than five (5) years. Awarding of punishment of 3
months by the trial Court was hopelessly disproportionate
particularly in view of the fact that no mitigating circumstance
has been pointed out by the trial court. The High Court failed in 0
its duty to take up the matter in its revisional power under
Section 401 r/w Section 386(e) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 and enhance the punishment commensurate
to the offence committed by them. We are appalled that the High
Court reduced the sentence to four days. ·
E
10. In State of UP. v. Shri Kishan, AIR 2005 SC 1250,
this Court has emphasised that just and proper sentence should
be imposed. The Court held:
"...... Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences F
or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of
lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result-
wise counter productive in the long run and against
societal interest which needs to be cared for and
strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the G
sentencing system.
The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate
punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been
committed not only against the individual victim but also
H
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 1 S.C.R.
A against the society to which the criminal and victim
belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must
not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be
consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the
crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime
B warranting public abhorrence and it should 'respond to
the society's cry for justice against the criminal'."
(Emphasis added)
(See also: Chinnadurai v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1996
C SC 546; Sadhupati Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, AIR 2012 SC 3242; and Ajahar Ali v. State of West
Bengal, (2013) 10 SCC 31).
11. In State of Rajasthan v. Vinod Kumar, AIR 2012 SC
0 2301, this Court while dealing with the issue of minimum
sentence provided under the statute held:
"19. Awarding punishment lesser than the minimum
prescribed under Section 376, /PC, is an exception to
the general rule. Exception clause is to be invoked only
E in exceptional circumstances where the conditions
incorporated in the exception clause itself exist. It is a
settled legal proposition that exception clause is always
required to be strictly interpreted even if there is a
hardship to any individual. Exception is provided with the
F object of taking it out of the scope of the basic law and
what is included in it and what legislature desired to be
excluded. The natural presumption in law is that but for
the proviso, the enacting part of the Section would have
included the subject-matter of the proviso, the enacting
G part should be generally given such a construction which
would make the exceptions carved out by the proviso
necessary and a construction which would make the
exceptions unnecessary and redundant should be
avoided. Proviso is used to remove special cases from
H the ,general enactment and provide for them separately.
SAVARALA SAi SREE v. GURRAMKONDA 7
VASUDEVARAO & ORS.
Proviso may change the very concept of the mtendment A
of the enactment by insisting on certain mandatory
' conditions to be fulfilled in order to make the enactment
workable. (Vide,· S. Sundaram Pillai, etc. v. V.R.
Pattabiraman, AIR 1985 SC 582; Union of India and Ors.
v. Mis. Wood Papers Ltd. and Anr., AIR 1991 SC 2049; B
Grasim Industries Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Madhya
Pradesh and Anr., AIR 2000 SC 66; Laxminarayan R.
Bhattad and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., AIR
2003 SC 3502; Project Officer, /TOP and Ors. v. P.O.
Chacko, AIR 2010 SC 2626; and Commissioner of C
Central Excise, New Delhi v. Hari Chand Shri Gopa/ and
Ors., (2011) 1 sec 236).
20. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the
effect that punishment should always be proportionate/
commensurate to the gravity of offence .... The court has D
to decide the punishment after considenng all
aggravating and mitigating factors and the circumstances
in which the crime has been committed. Conduct and
state of mind of the accused ..... .and the gravity of the
criminal act are the factors of paramount importance. The E
court must exercise its discretion in imposing the
punishment objectively considering the facts and
circumstances of .the case. The power under the proviso
is not to be used indiscriminately in a routine, casual and
cavalier manner for the reason that an exception clause F
requires strict interpretation ...
The court while exercising the discretion in the
exception clause has to record "exceptional reasons" for
resorting to the proviso. Recording of such reasons is
sine qua non for granting the extraordinary relief. What G
is adequate and special would depend upon several
factors and no straight jacket formula can be laid down."
12. Undoubtedly, imposition of sentence is in the realm of
discretion of the court and unless the sentence is found to be H
8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 1 S.C.R.
A grossly inadequate, the appellate court would not be justified
in interfering with the discretionary order of sentence. This view
stands fortified by the judgment of this Court in Ram Sanjiwan
Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1996 SC 3265.
13. In view of the above, the orders impugned are not
8
sustainable in the eyes of law. Thus, we allow the appeal, set
aside the sentence and remand the matter back to the High
Court to determine the quantum of punishment. However, to cut
short, we issue notice to the respondents for enhancement of
punishment to which they can file the reply within a period of 8
C weeks from today before the High Court and the High Court is
requested to pass an appropriate order of punishment
considering the law referred to hereinabove. As the matter is
old, we request the High Court to decide the case in regard to
quantum of punishment within a period of 3 months after the
D reply is filed by the respondents.
With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of.
R.P. Appeal disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Dowry Prohibition Act"Sign in to search