Criminal Appeal No. 1498 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8795 of 2012). Case: Manohar Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 1498 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8795 of 2012) |
| Judges | Ranjana Prakash Desai and N.V. Ramana, JJ. |
| Issue | Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 307, 498A; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 320, 482; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 4 |
| Judgement Date | July 21, 2014 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
Ranjana Prakash Desai, J.
-
Leave granted.
-
The Appellant is original Accused No. 3. He was tried along with his father Hukum Singh-original Accused No. 1 and his mother Prem Bai-original Accused No. 2 by the Judicial Magistrate, Dewas (Madhya Pradesh) in Crime Case No. 1680/2009 for offences punishable Under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the Indian Penal Code') and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Dowry Act'). By judgment and order dated 29/9/2010 learned Magistrate acquitted the Appellant and the other two accused. Being aggrieved by this order the State of Madhya Pradesh preferred appeal in the Sessions Court, Dewas being Criminal Appeal No. 12/2011. The Sessions Court set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the Appellant and two others Under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each. For offence Under Section 4 of the Dowry Act each of them was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each.
-
Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the accused carried criminal revision to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court by the impugned order set aside the conviction and sentence of original Accused Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the father and mother of the Appellant. The conviction of the Appellant was, however, confirmed. His sentence was reduced to six months and fine of Rs. 500/- on each count. Both the substantive sentences were to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by this judgment the Appellant filed the present appeal.
-
On 21/1/2013 the Appellant sought permission to implead the complainant i.e. his wife Reena as Respondent No. 2. A statement was made that the Appellant was willing to pay monetary compensation to his wife in lieu of substantive sentence of imprisonment. Permission to implead the complainant-wife Reena was granted. The Appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses. Respondent No. 2 was permitted to withdraw the said amount unconditionally. Subject to deposit, notice was issued to Respondent No. 2 to consider whether the Appellant can be asked to pay some suitable monetary compensation to Respondent No. 2 in lieu of substantive sentence of imprisonment. On 24/3/2014 counsel for the Appellant made a statement that the matter...
To continue reading
Request your trial