Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, VIKRAM NATH, JJ.
Randeep Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of U.T. Chandigarh & Anr. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(S).1934 of 2022(Arising from SLP(Crl.) No(s). 8206/2019)
Decided on : 09-11-2022
498A - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, Section 498A - The court upheld the conviction of the appellant under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, sustained the order of conviction of the appellant by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, but reduced the substantive sentence to six months. The appeal was partly allowed, and the judgment of the Revisional Court was modified to that extent.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, and the High Court sustained the conviction but reduced the substantive sentence to six months. The complainant-wife expressed her desire to join her husband and revive their matrimonial life during the hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction of the appellant, as there were concurrent findings of fact. The court reduced the punishment of rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellant in incarceration.
Issues: The issues involved the conviction of the appellant under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the reduction of the substantive sentence by the High Court, and the complainant-wife's desire to join her husband and revive their matrimonial life.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the conviction under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and reduced the substantive sentence based on the overall circumstances and the complainant-wife's desire to reconcile with the appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the judgment of the Revisional Court was modified to reduce the punishment of rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellant in incarceration.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, State and the Respondent no.2 (complainant), who is wife of the appellant. The present appeal is against a judgment and order passed by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction sustaining the order of conviction of the appellant by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court being the Sessions Court. The conviction of the appellant is under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court, upon finding the appellant guilty had imposed punishment of two years and also default sentence on failure to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only). This judgment of conviction and order of sentence were sustained by the Appellate Court. The High Court, in its Revisional jurisdiction did not interfere with the judgment of conviction but reduced the substantive sentence to six months. As there are concurrent findings of fact, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction of the appellant.
3. There is no perversity in the judgment assailed in this appeal.
4. In course of hearing today, learned counsel for the complainant-wife has submitted before us that his client would not like to contest the present appeal and she wants to join her husband i.e., the appellant and revive their matrimonial life. In this proceeding, we cannot pass any order on that count. For that purpose, the respondent-wife may take such steps as may be advised. Considering the overall circumstances, we, however, reduce the punishment of rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellant in incarceration.
5. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms and the judgment of the Revisional Court is modified to that extent.
6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
AI
Marital discord – Settlement between parties – Maintaining of conviction of appellant for offence under Section 498-A IPC while modifying sentence to period of imprisonment already undergone would no....
The conviction under Section 354 I.P.C was upheld while the sentence was reduced from two years to one year due to elapsed time and other mitigating factors.
The court affirmed that minor discrepancies in evidence do not invalidate a conviction under Section 498-A IPC, emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 498A IPC, affirming that delay in reporting matrimonial cruelty does not negate the credibility of the victim's testimony.
(1) Cruelty – Harassment and cruelty within marriage cannot be viewed in isolation, but must be assessed in context of continuous conduct.(2) Assaulting wife in connection with dowry demands is not a....
The court considered the compromise between the parties and the petitioner's age and time spent in custody in modifying the sentence, while upholding the conviction under Section 498-A of the Indian ....
Conviction under Section 498A quashed due to amicable settlement and private marital nature.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
