Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 1636
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, JJ.
Hari Singh And Another – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 998 of 2025 (Arising Out of SLP (Criminal) No.7648 of 2024)
Decided on : 28-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Palash Singhai, Advocate, for Petitioner; Mr. Sarthak Raizada G.A., Advocate, Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, Advocate and Mr. Kameshwar Nath Mishra, Advocate, for Respondent
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A and 304-B - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Conviction for domestic violence and dowry death; High Court's judgment challenged on sentencing - Appellants' sentence of one year for Section 498-A conviction affirmed; seven years for Section 304-B set aside. (Para 4)
(B) Right to fair hearing - Appellants claim breach of mandatory provisions not heard on sentence; only half-hearted representation by amicus curiae. (Paras 6, 13)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted of domestic violence and dowry death, with sentences of one year and seven years respectively, affirmed and set aside by High Court. Despite lack of proper legal representation, the appellants sought a reconsideration of sentence on the basis of age and length of incarceration.
Findings of Court:
Due to special circumstances (advanced age and incomplete representation), the Supreme Court modified the sentence to the term already served.
Issues: Whether the appellants were adequately represented during sentencing and if they could challenge the High Court's judgment post-appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the right to a fair hearing with the interests of justice, concluding the substituted sentence as appropriate given the circumstances faced by the appellants.
Result: Sentence modified to time served with fine order maintained.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judgment and parties' previous convictions (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments about sentencing and representation (Para 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 3. court's observations and decision-making (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. modification of the sentence based on special circumstances (Para 14) |
| 5. order for fine payment and concluding the appeal (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh by the impugned judgment and order dated 13th April, 2024 has dismissed an application Misc. Criminal Case No. 35883 of 2022 under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Cr. PC] filed by the appellants observing that no case for interference was set up by them.
3. Vide judgment and order dated 17th January, 2006 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Umaria in S.T. No. 273 of 2002, the appellants were convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 [IPC] and consequently sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and seven years, respectively, with fine.
4. The conviction and sentence, as aforesaid, were carried in an appeal [Cr. A. No.208 of 2006] by the appellants before the High Court under Section 374(2), Cr. PC. The High Court vide judgment and order dated 24th August, 2018 affirmed the conviction of the appellants under Section 498-A, IPC recorded by the trial court as well as the sentence of a year's imprisonment. At the same time, the conviction of the appellants under Section 304-B, IPC was set aside by the High Court.
5. Limited notice was issued on the special leave petition on the question of sentence by a coordinate bench of this Court on 21st May, 2024. There is little doubt that the coordinate bench was under the impression that disposal of the criminal appeal by the High Court was under challenge. Actually, we too were initially labouring under the same impression. Be that as it may.
6. In the application under Section 482 , Cr. PC, what the appellants had argued was that they were not heard on the question of sentence and thereby, the mandatory provision of Section 235 , Cr. PC was observed in the breach. The learned Judge of the High Court observed that since the appellants had been sentenced to a year's imprisonment upon conviction being recorded for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC and on affirmation of such conviction and sentence in appeal, there was no requirement to hear them on sentence twice over.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the High Court while dismissing the appeal failed to notice that the amicus curiae appointed by it, to press the case of the appellants, did not serve any notice on the appellants and, therefore, the merits of the appeal were not placed in the proper perspective for a decision before the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction. In any event, the High Court having set aside the conviction under Section 304-B, IPC together with the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment, it ought to have heard the appellants once again on the question of sentence to be awarded for the conviction under Section 498-A, IPC.
8. It is also submitted that while the first appellant is a septuagenarian, the second appellant is a sexagenarian; and they having served imprisonment of four months already out of the one-year prison term and since the incident of offence dates back to February, 2002, the sentence ought to be altered to the term of imprisonment already undergone.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Madhya Pradesh submits that having regard to the limited scope of the application under Section 482 , Cr. PC filed before the High Court by the appellants, question of interfering with the sentence does not and cannot arise. He refers to the fact that the appellants' appeal against the conviction under Section 498-A, IPC and sentence of a year's imprisonment having been dismissed by the High Court and there being no further challenge, the same has attained finality.
