Prem Lal & Anr. vs State
2009 Latest Caselaw 3408 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     CRL. A. NO.189/1995

                                      Date of Decision : 27.8.2009

PREM LAL & ANR.                                    ......Petitioners
                                Through:    Mr.    V.R.Datar    and
                                            Mr.Viresh         Kumar
                                            Jaharya, Advocates

                                 Versus

STATE                                            ...... Respondent
                                Through:    Mr. Pawan Bahl, APP

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be
       allowed to see the judgment?                   YES
2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?        NO
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported
       in the Digest ?                                NO

V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the

judgment and order of sentence dated 23.9.1995 by virtue

of which the appellants were convicted for an offence under

Section 498A and sentenced to two years of RI and a fine of

Rs.2,000/- each. It may be pertinent here to mention that

in this appeal the learned Single Judge of this Court had

not only upheld the conviction but also the sentence of the

appellants vide order dated 05.9.2001.

2. This had led to the filing of a criminal appeal bearing

No.1297/2001 before the Supreme Court and it had set

aside the order dated 05.9.2001 of the High Court and

remanded the matter back to this Court for consideration of

the entire matter afresh that is how the appeal has been

reheard.

3. The facts of the prosecution case are that the appellant

Manju daughter of Sh.Sobh Raj R/o House No.961,

Mukherji Nagar, Delhi was married to appellant no.1 on

17.11.1985. After the marriage, Manju along with

appellant no.1 and her mother in law were living in House

No.961, Mukherji Nagar. The prosecution case against

the appellant was that Manju was subjected to cruelty with

a view to demand dowry from time to time both by

appellant no.1 and appellant no.2. It is alleged that on 2 nd

August, 1986 at about 8.30 p.m. Manju was sitting in

kitchen when her husband-appellant no.1 allegedly poured

kerosene oil on her from behind and dragged her towards

courtyard from where appellant no.2 is alleged to have been

set ablaze with a match stick. It is alleged that the

appellants stopped Manju from coming out and thereafter

she is reported to have been taken to LNJP hospital by

appellant no.1 where she was given treatment for her burn

injuries. Initially, a case under Section 309 IPC was

registered at the time of her admission in the hospital but

on the next date in the morning i.e. 03.8.1986, on the basis

of the alleged statement of the victim, the offence was

converted into 307/34 IPC. On account of subsequent

death of the injured, the said offence was further converted

into 302/498A/34 IPC.

4. The appellants were put to trial. After examination of

prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was

recorded. The learned ASJ vide impugned judgment dated

23.9.1995 gave a finding to the effect that the death of the

deceased Manju was homicidal. It also observed that the

burn injuries suffered by the deceased here also not been

proved to be accidental. Therefore, the only possibility of

her having sustained the burn injuries with a view to

commit suicide was there, which was also not approved by

the learned ASJ. In the light of the aforesaid observations,

the appellants who were charged for an offence u/s 302 IPC

were not only acquitted of the said offence of 302 IPC but

also u/s 304B of the IPC. It may be pertinent here to

mention that the death of the deceased Manju was

unfortunately within eight months or so from the date of

her marriage.

5. The appellants were convicted only u/s 498A IPC that is for

subjecting the women to cruelty with a view to extract

dowry. For this, both the appellants were sentenced to RI

for two years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each.

6. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for

the appellant has very fairly stated that the incident had

taken place in the month of August, 1986 and since then

nearly more than 23 years have elapsed, therefore, he is

not challenging the conviction of the appellants for an

offence u/s 498A IPC but is confining his submissions only

on the quantum of sentence which has been imposed on

the appellant. It was contended by the learned counsel

that the appellant no.1 has already undergone more than

eight months of incarceration after the registration of the

offence and similarly so far as the appellant no.2 is

concerned she has undergone incarceration of more than

9½ months in this case.

7. It is contended that both the appellants have been facing

trial from 1986 onwards resulting in their conviction on

23.9.95 which is almost for a decade latter. From the date

of their conviction till date, further nearly 14 years have

elapsed and the sword is still hanging on them. During all

these 23 years, both appellants have been subjected to

tortuous trial, immense mental harassment, which in itself

was a sufficient punishment to them.

8. Secondly, it was contended that so far as appellant no.2 is

concerned, as on date she is nearly 67 years of age and

with failing health. The mental faculties of the lady have

also suffered considerably and therefore, sending her to jail

at this age will not serve any purpose and would be very

harsh to the appellant. It was urged that continued

incarceration will only have an adverse effect and would not

serve any further social purpose.

9. As regards appellant no.1, it was urged that he is working

with DTC and he has been already proceeded

departmentally which proceedings have been kept on hold

on account of the present appeal and even if his sentence is

reduced still he will be suffering the stigma of the

conviction which will have wide ramifications so far as his

career prospects with the DTC are concerned. It is stated

that he still has ten years of service left.

10. It was urged that requiring appellant no.1 to undergo the

remaining portion of his sentence, will not serve any social

purpose and instead of that it is to only going to bring the

appellants in contact with the hardened criminals.

11. The ld. counsel for the appellant has very fairly conceded

that the appellants can be put to further terms by reducing

the period of sentence of imprisonment to the period which

is already undergone by them and enhancing the fine.

12. The learned APP for the State has urged that the whole

purpose of sending persons to imprisonment in an offence

u/s 498A is not only to punish perpetrator of this social

crime but also to deter other likeminded persons from

indulging in the demand of dowry and consequently

subjecting the wife to cruelty. However, he urged that in

this case it is the discretion of the Court to reduce the

sentence of incarceration, keeping in view lot of time has

elapsed from the date of incident.

13. I have carefully considered the respective submissions.

There is no doubt about the fact that this is one of the most

heinous crimes where the life of a woman is cut short.

But unfortunately the prosecution has not been able to

establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the

appellants either under Section 302 or 304B IPC they have

been convicted only for an offence under Section 498A IPC.

The said offence carries maximum sentence of three years

while as the appellants have been sentenced to two years RI

apart from fine of Rs.2,000/- by the Trial Court. The

appellants have have been facing trial and the appeal for

the last more than 23 years and it is too distant in time to

send the appellants to further imprisonment as it would

not serve any social objective especially in the light of the

facts which have been brought on record by way of

submissions that the appellant no.2 is 67 years of age with

failing health and the appellant no.1 is working in DTC and

the continued incarceration in his case will have serious

repercussions so far as the career prospects for the

remaining period of his service is concerned.

14. The appellants have already undergone almost half of the

period of sentence which was imposed on them by the

learned Sessions Judge. I feel that the interest of justice

would be met by the same and the only thing which needs

to be done is to enhance the fine.

15. I, accordingly, feel that the interest of justice would be met

in case the sentence which has been imposed on the

appellants by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated

23.9.95 is reduced to the period already undergone by

them respectively while as the fine of Rs.2,000/- is

increased to Rs.50,000/- each and in default of payment of

fine they will further undergo SI of three months each. The

fine shall be paid within one month from today.

16 With these directions, the appeal stands disposed of.

17. List the matter before the learned Registrar General of this

Court for ensuring the payment of fine.

18. The trial court record be sent back.

19. Copy of this order be given free of cost to the appellants.

V.K. SHALI, J.

AUGUST 27, 2009 RN