RUBI DEVI Vs STATE OF BIHAR
Bench: HARJIT SINGH BEDI,CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, , ,
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000219-000219 / 2011
Diary number: 32374 / 2010
Advocates: HIMANSHU SHEKHAR Vs
GOPAL SINGH
Crl.A. No. of 2011 @ SLP(Crl) 8982 of 2010 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 219 OF 2011 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) NO. 8982 OF 2010]
RUBI DEVI & ANR. ...... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR ...... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants herein are the married sisters-in-
law of the complainant Punam Devi who had filed a
complaint under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal
and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On
conviction, the appellants have been sentenced by the
trial court to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine
of Rs. 2500/- and in default of payment of fine to
undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 21 days under
Section 498A IPC and three months rigorous imprisonment
under Section 323 IPC and a further sentence for two
months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-
under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and payment
of fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine
to undergo further imprisonment of seven days. The
Crl.A. No. of 2011 @ SLP(Crl) 8982 of 2010 2
sentences aforesaid were affirmed by the Appellate court.
The High Court in revision has reduced the sentence to
eight months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under
Section 498A but affirmed the conviction and sentence by
the courts below awarded with respect to the other
offences.
3. When this matter came up before this Court on the
12th November, 2010, notice was issued confined to the
quantum of sentence, returnable within four weeks keeping
in mind that the appellants herein were the married
sisters-in-law of the complainant. We see that the
appellants have undergone about five months of the
sentence under Section 498A. We feel that in the facts of
the case, the sentence awarded to the appellants under
Section 498A of the IPC should be reduced to that already
undergone. We make an order accordingly.
4. The appellants shall be released forthwith if not
required in connection with any other case.
5. The appeal is dismissed with the above modification
in the sentence.
...... ..................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
........................J
Crl.A. No. of 2011 @ SLP(Crl) 8982 of 2010 3
[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD] NEW DELHI JANUARY 18, 2011.