Pawan Kumar vs The State
2009 Latest Caselaw 129 Del

*                     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