* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on : January 07, 2009
Judgment delivered on : January 16, 2009
+ Crl. A. No.440/1999
Pawan Kumar ... Appellant
Through: Mr. R.K. Naseem , Mr. Nitin
Tittal and Mr. Manish Kumar,
Advocates
versus
The State ... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest?
SUNIL GAUR, J.
1. In this appeal, appellant is challenging the impugned judgment dated 20th August, 1999 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby appellant has been found guilty of subjecting his wife to cruelty and of abetting her suicide in the evening on 3rd day of September, 1986. Vide impugned order of 23rd August, 1999, appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of rupees one thousand for the offence under section 306 of the IPC and he Crl.A. No. 440/1999 Page 1 has been further sentenced to RI for three years and to a fine of rupees five hundred for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC.
2. It emerges from the record of this case that appellant was married with Kanta (since deceased) on 7th May, 1982 and as per the version of the parents of the deceased, appellant/accused was in the habit of taking liquor and he used to demand money from the deceased and used to harass her and had left his wife Kanta at her parental house for a period of about six months and during this period, Kanta took up a petty job to earn her livelihood and thereafter, the appellant/accused took back his wife and child and had again started harassing and torturing his wife Kanta. On the fateful day of 3rd September, 1986, appellant's wife Kanta committed suicide by burning herself at the house of the appellant and she was removed to the Hospital, where she disclosed to the doctor that she was upset by the behaviour of her husband and on the same very day, she expired. Inquest proceedings followed. Investigation commenced and thereafter, appellant was charge sheeted for the offence under section 306/498-A of the IPC.
3. Trial ensued as appellant/accused did not plead guilty to the charges framed against him under the aforesaid provisions of law. Eleven witnesses deposed at trial against the appellant/accused and out of them, the crucial evidence is of parents of the deceased Crl.A. No. 440/1999 Page 2 i.e. Trilok Chand (PW-1) and Savitri Devi (PW-2). MLC of the deceased giving the alleged history of deceased being upset due to behaviour of her husband stands proved by Dr. Vijay Rai (PW-
4). Nirmal Singh (PW-11), the landlord of the appellant did not support the prosecution case fully but had stated that he had seen verbal altercation between the appellant and the deceased. Inspector Gurdev Singh (PW-12) is the Investigating Officer of this case. The stand taken by the appellant before the trial court was of denial of the prosecution case and of his wife suffering from mental disorder and of her committing suicide because of aforesaid medical condition. However, no evidence was led by the appellant in his defence before the trial court. After the trial, the appellant/accused had been convicted and sentenced as detailed above.
4. Both the sides have been heard in this appeal and the evidence on record has been meticulously perused.
5. After having gone through the evidence of the parents of the deceased and the impugned judgment, I find that the learned Counsel for the appellant has rightly not pressed this appeal on merits and has straightaway taken a stand that a long period of more than two decades have elapsed and the appellant/accused had remained in custody in this case for a period of about four months and the child of the deceased had been brought up by the Crl.A. No. 440/1999 Page 3 appellant/accused and is now grown up and is now supporting the appellant and since the appellant had already faced the agony of trial and appeal proceedings for such a long period, it would be too harsh upon the appellant to put him behind bars now to serve out the remaining sentence and ends of justice would be met, by reducing the sentence of the appellant, to the period already undergone by him. Nothing else had been urged on behalf of the appellant.
6. On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that in the face of the evidence on record, there is no scope for reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone as the appellant has remained behind bars in this case just for one and a half months, as per his nominal rolls.
7. The stand of the appellant of his wife committing suicide on account of some mental disorder has been rightly rejected by the trial court as nothing was brought on record to substantiate the aforesaid stand. The evidence of the parents of the deceased coupled with the alleged history given by the deceased to the doctor, conclusively proves that on account of the harassment of the deceased by the appellant, Kanta had committed suicide. Thus, the conviction of the appellant by the trial court is well merited and is hereby upheld.
Crl.A. No. 440/1999 Page 4
8. As far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, this Court is of considered opinion that in a serious case like the present one, imposition of flea-bit sentence would be mockery of law and a bad precedent. The sentence has to be commensurate with the magnitude of the offence. Simply because, more than two decades have elapsed, it would not be a good ground to drastically reduce the sentence from five years to just about one and a half months. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, there is hardly any scope for reduction of the sentence imposed upon the appellant. Sentence imposed upon the appellant is just and proper and is upheld.
9. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Appellant is on bail. His bail bond and surety bonds are cancelled. He is directed to be taken into custody, to serve out the remaining sentence.
10. With the aforesaid directions, this appeal stands disposed of.
SUNIL GAUR, J
January 16, 2009
dkg
Crl.A. No. 440/1999 Page 5