Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay High Court MACT | Appellate Court Can Reduce Compensation Even If Insurer’s Appeal Challenges Quantum While Claimant Seeks Enhancement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Written Statement To Correct Internal Inconsistencies Does Not Amount To Withdrawal Of Admission: Delhi High Court Oral Family Partition Valid Even If Unregistered: Jharkhand High Court Power Of Attorney Lacking Explicit Interest Is Revocable Regardless Of 'Irrevocable' Label: Gujarat High Court DRC Act | Summary Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Extended Litigation By Seeking To File Additional Documents Post-Pleadings: Delhi High Court Financial Institutions Cannot Use 'Goonda-ism' For Repossession: Supreme Court Mandates Compensation For Violation Of Article 21 Motor Vehicles Act: Claimant Cannot Invoke Jurisdiction Of A Forum Where Neither Accident Occurred Nor Defendant Resides: Supreme Court Article 226 | Writ Court Cannot Decide Title Disputes Or Protect Possession If Factual Matrix Is Disputed: Supreme Court Suppression Of Material Facts In Writ Petition Under Article 32 Renders Challenge Non-Maintainable: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Conviction Under IPC Sections 354D and 506-Part I to Preserve Marital Harmony, Invokes Article 142

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has quashed the conviction of Dasari Srikanth under Sections 354D and 506-Part I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), invoking Article 142 of the Constitution to prioritize matrimonial harmony. The decision was rendered by a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, emphasizing the potential adverse impact on the marital relationship between the appellant and the complainant if the conviction was upheld.

The case revolves around the appellant, Dasari Srikanth, who was convicted by the Special Fast Track Court, Suryapet, for offences under Sections 354D (stalking) and 506-Part I (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. The trial court acquitted him under the POCSO Act but sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and six months for the IPC offences. The High Court of Telangana, upon appeal, reduced the imprisonment to three months but upheld the conviction.

During the pendency of the appeal, Srikanth and the complainant got married, which led to the appellant seeking quashing of his conviction to prevent any harm to their matrimonial relationship.

The appellant and complainant's marriage was verified by the State of Telangana's standing counsel, confirming it was solemnized and registered under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

"The offences under Section 354D IPC and Section 506 IPC are personal to the complainant and the accused appellant. The fact that the appellant and the complainant have married each other during the pendency of this appeal gives rise to a reasonable belief that both were involved in some kind of relationship even when the offences alleged were said to have been committed." [Para 7]

The court noted that upholding the conviction could have a "disastrous consequence on the accused appellant being sent to jail which in turn could put his matrimonial relationship with the complainant in danger." [Para 8]

The bench decided to use its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice. "As a consequence, we are inclined to exercise the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for quashing the conviction of the accused appellant as recorded by the learned trial Court and modified by the High Court." [Para 9]

The Supreme Court quashed the judgments of both the High Court and the trial court, thereby acquitting the appellant of all charges. The appeal was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of.

Date of Decision:15th May 2024

Dasari Srikanth vs. State of Telangana

Latest Legal News