New Delhi: 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 Justices P Sathasivam and H L Dattu passed the
judgement while reducing to 10 years the life sentence imposed
on G V 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.
PTI
First Published: Sunday, February 07, 2010, 11:31