Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Dowry Death Case: Sangita @ Rekha Sambhaji Malode vs. State of Maharashtra (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 12 September 2018
Citation: (Not available in the source)
Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and Indira Banerjee, J.
Can a court reduce the sentence of a person convicted for dowry death? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question while hearing an appeal related to the quantum of sentence in a dowry death case. The court considered the specific circumstances of the appellant, who was the sister-in-law of the deceased, and reduced her sentence. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench of Justices R. Banumathi and Indira Banerjee.

Case Background

The appellant, Sangita @ Rekha Sambhaji Malode, was convicted along with her brother, Vasant, for offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (cruelty towards a married woman) and Section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide), read with Section 34 of the IPC (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention). The deceased, Surekha, was the wife of Vasant and the sister-in-law of the appellant. The appellant was sentenced to two years imprisonment for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC and five years imprisonment for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, with both sentences to run concurrently. Vasant, the appellant’s brother, had also been convicted for the same offences and had already served his sentence.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court had issued notice on 20th February, 2009, limited to the quantum of sentence. The appellant’s counsel argued that she is a married woman residing with her husband in Nasik, has two grown-up children to care for, and has already served a significant portion of her sentence. The incident occurred in 2002, and the appellant had served one year, ten months, and ten days of her sentence.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with cruelty by husband or relatives of husband towards a woman.
• Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section addresses abetment of suicide.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Arguments

The appellant’s counsel, Mr. Sushil Karanjkar, argued that:

• The appellant is a married woman residing with her husband in Nasik.
• She has two grown-up children to care for.
• She has already served one year, ten months, and ten days of her sentence.
• The incident occurred in 2002.

The innovativeness of the argument lies in emphasizing the personal circumstances of the appellant, such as her family responsibilities and the time elapsed since the incident, as mitigating factors for reducing the sentence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 should be reduced, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or legal provisions in this judgment. The decision was based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case.

Judgment

The Supreme Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment of five years imposed upon the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to a period of two years. The court noted that this reduction was specific to the facts and circumstances of the case and should not be treated as a precedent.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to reduce the sentence was primarily influenced by the appellant’s personal circumstances, including her family responsibilities and the fact that she had already served a significant portion of her sentence. The court also considered the time elapsed since the incident.

The court’s reasoning focused on the specific facts of the case and the appellant’s personal circumstances. The Court stated, “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment of five years imposed upon the appellant for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is reduced to a period of two years.” The court also clarified, “We make it clear that the reduction of sentence is in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the same may not be treated as precedent.” The court further directed, “The appellant is to surrender to custody within a period of four weeks to serve the remaining sentence failing which she shall be taken to custody.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court reduced the sentence of the appellant from five years to two years for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The reduction in sentence was based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, including the appellant’s family responsibilities, time served, and the time elapsed since the incident.
• The court clarified that this reduction should not be treated as a precedent.

Directions

The appellant was directed to surrender to custody within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence, failing which she would be taken into custody.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the court can reduce the sentence based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case. This judgment does not change any previous position of law but emphasizes the importance of considering individual circumstances in sentencing.

Conclusion

In the case of Sangita @ Rekha Sambhaji Malode vs. The State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence of the appellant from five years to two years for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, considering her family circumstances, time served, and the time elapsed since the incident. The court clarified that this reduction was specific to the facts of the case and should not be treated as a precedent.