Under Section 304-B (dowry death) of the IPC, the minimum punishment is seven years but the maximum punishment can go up to life imprisonment.
The Supreme Court has taken a view that only in rare cases life imprisonment should be awarded to those convicted for causing the death of women in dowry-related cases.
A bench of Justice P Sathasivam and Justice HL Dattu passed the judgement while reducing to 10 years the life sentence imposed on GV Siddaramesh, convicted by a sessions court in Karnataka for causing the death of his wife Usha.
Under Section 304-B (dowry death) of the IPC, the minimum punishment is seven years but the maximum punishment can go up to life imprisonment.
Citing the judgement of a three-judge bench in the "Hemchand V State of Haryana" case, the apex court said Section 304 B merely raises a presumption of dowry death and lays down that the minimum sentence should be seven years which may extend to imprisonment for life.
"Therefore, awarding the extreme punishment of imprisonment for life should be used in rare cases and not in every case," it said, citing its observation in the earlier case.
In the present case, the Supreme Court said since Siddaramesh was a young man, it would be appropriate if his sentence is altered to 10 years as against the life imprisonment imposed by the trial court.
Usha who got married to Siddaramesh on December 13, 1997, committed suicide by hanging herself at their matrimonial home on January 17, 1998 within a month of the marriage.
She took the extreme step on account of the mental torture meted out to her by Siddaramesh who was demanding an additional Rs 50,000 dowry.
The sessions court convicted Siddaramesh under various sections including 304B and awarded the life imprisonment. The Karnataka high court confirmed the sentence following which he appealed to the apex court.
The convict took the plea that his wife committed suicide as she was against their marriage, since Usha had a love affair with another man.
However, the apex court rejected the argument and said the prosecution had been able to prove the charge against him and as such his plea of innocence cannot be countenanced.
"In conclusion, we are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant was rightly convicted under Section 304-B IPC. However, his sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the courts below appears to us to be excessive.
"The appellant is a young man and has already undergone six years of imprisonment after being convicted by the additional sessions judge and the high court. We are of the view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that a sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice," the apex court said while altering the sentence.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}