MANOHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-2014-7-56
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADHYA PRADESH)
Decided on
July 21,2014
MANOHAR SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]NARINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
BELA SHARDA VS. STATE AND ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-691] [REFERRED]RAVINDER KUMAR VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2017-3-82] [REFERRED TO]
JASPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-640] [REFERRED TO]
ANGREJ ALI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER GARG AND ORS. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-10-95] [REFERRED TO]
JAMEEL KHAN VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2020-5-225] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDER VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2019-7-190] [REFERRED TO]
GURDEEP SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-362] [REFERRED TO]
SAU.MAYA SANJAY KHANDARE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
MADHUR MALHOTRA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2021-8-137] [REFERRED TO]
HARPREET SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-117] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-99] [REFERRED TO]
TARSEM LAL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-310] [REFERRED TO]
RAMANDEEP KAUR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-103] [REFERRED TO]
TARANDEEP KAUR VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-10-62] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR BHARATI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-4-156] [REFERRED TO]
HARI CHARAN YADAV VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-2-136] [REFERRED TO]
MANGILAL AGRAWAL VS. STATE OF M.P [LAWS(MPH)-2018-12-106] [REFERRED TO]
SANGAM @ RAHUL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-380] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK SAI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-4-59] [REFERRED TO]
SEBASTIAN VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2014-12-147] [REFERRED TO]
PUSHPENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-6-139] [REFERRED TO]
PIARA SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-10-101] [REFERRED TO]
K SEKAR VS. STATE OF TAMILNADU REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2018-6-265] [REFERRED TO]
BIREN BADUK VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-6-39] [REFERRED TO]
MARJINA BIBI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2016-11-19] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDU ALIAS RAMCHANDRA S/O VISHWANATH PIMPALKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH CHANDRAPUR CITY POLICE STATION, CHANDRAPUR [LAWS(BOM)-2017-9-249] [REFERRED TO]
JATINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-639] [REFERRED TO]
PRITAM SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-378] [REFERRED TO]
SAGAR KUNDAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-239] [REFERRED TO]
PARAMASIVAM VS. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2018-7-184] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2020-3-13] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)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 IPC') 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 IPC 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.
(3.)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.
(2.)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 IPC') 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 IPC 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.
(3.)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.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.