Delhi High Court

Ram Kumari vs The State (Nct) Of Delhi on 9 February, 2011

Author: Ajit Bharihoke

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                            Judgment delivered on: February 09, 2011

+      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.888/2008

       RAM KUMARI                                  ....APPELLANT
              Through:       Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate with Mr.
                             Gaurav Bhattacharya, Advocate.

                       Versus


       THE STATE (NCT) OF DELHI               .....RESPONDENT

Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ?

AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.(ORAL)

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated

30th July, 2008 in Sessions Case No. 223/2006, FIR no. 128/2002, P.S.

Samaipur Badli and the consequent order on sentence dated 31 st

July, 2008, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to undergo

RI for the period of four years and to pay fine of ` 500/-, in default

thereof to undergo SI for a further period of 15 days.

2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 23rd February,

2002 between 07.00 p.m. to 07.30 p.m., at first floor of house of

Udai Raj Sharma, near Post Office-Village Badli, the appellant

assaulted her husband Pradeep (deceased) with a 'silbatta' (grinding

stone) and caused him as many as seven injuries and escaped from

the place of occurrence along with her young girl child. Pradeep

(deceased) was taken to Santom Hospital, Prashant Vihar by the

complainant Suraj Pal (PW4). The information about the admission

of Pradeep was conveyed by the hospital authorities to the police

station and on this, ASI Hari Ram reached at the hospital and

collected the MLC of the deceased, who was declared unfit for

statement and was referred to Trauma Centre. ASI Hari Ram

recorded the statement of Suraj Pal (Ex.PW3/C) and sent it to the

police station along with his endorsement Ex.PW16/A for the

registration of the case. Pradeep unfortunately expired because of

the injuries and on receipt of information regarding his death,

Section 302 IPC was added to the FIR. On completion of the

investigation of the case, appellant was challaned and sent for trial

on the strength of circumstantial evidence.

3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge charged the appellant

for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC, to which, the

appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, prosecution

has examined 19 witnesses.

5. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was

recorded wherein she claimed to be innocent and she stated that

Suraj Pal (PW4) and his wife Shanti (PW5) had borrowed ` 20,000/-

from her late husband Pradeep and in order to avoid payment of

said money, they had falsely implicated her in this case. The

appellant examined one Sunil Kumar in her defence.

6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on consideration of

submissions made on behalf of the parties and the material on

record, convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC and

sentenced her accordingly.

7. Learned Sh. Ajay Verma, Advocate/amicus curiae, on

instructions from the appellant, who is present in the court, submits

that the appellant admits her guilt and she does not wish to

challenge her conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC. He, however,

has confined his arguments against the sentence awarded to the

appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

sentence awarded to the appellant is harsh and the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, while sentencing the appellant, has

ignored the fact that this is a case of stray incident and that the

appellant is a young lady having a minor daughter who needs the

care and protection of her mother. Learned counsel further submits

that the daughter of the appellant is aged about 12 years and at this

impressionable age, she needs the support and guidance of the

appellant. Otherwise also, the sentence awarded to the appellant is

almost over. Thus, he has urged for reduction of the sentence of

imprisonment of the appellant to the period already undergone in

custody by the appellant and the remission earned by her.

8. Learned APP, on the other hand, has submitted that

considering the gravity of offence committed by the appellant, she

has already been dealt with leniently by the Additional Sessions

Judge and there is no reason for reduction of the sentence.

9. I have considered the rival contentions. Sentencing of an

accused in a criminal matter is a serious exercise and the quantum

of sentence imposed commensurate with the gravity of the offence

committed by the accused and the circumstances under which the

offence was committed. While dealing with the issue of sentence for

the offences under Sections 3,4 & 6 of Terrorist and Disruptive

Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Supreme Court in the matter of

Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (2001) 9 SCC 161,

wherein the Supreme Court, has inter alia, observed thus:

"7. ......Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future.

The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such a case; a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society; weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation, has to be avoided, again within the permissible limits of law.

8. After giving our anxious consideration to the question of reduction of sentence as urged on behalf of the appellant and objected to on behalf of the respondent, we have come to the conclusion that some consideration should be shown to the appellant in the matter. In coming to this conclusion we have taken into account the facts that he has spent a long period, more than thirteen years, in jail; that he was a young man of 21 years when he committed the act giving rise to the case; that the situation then prevailing in the State of Punjab was surcharged with acts of terrorism and several misguided young men were drawn into the movement; that in the meantime the movement has subsided and it could be reasonably taken that the State is free from the menace of terrorism. In taking the decision to show some consideration to the appellant in the matter of punishment we have reposed confidence in goodness of human character which is a part of the personality of every human being. We hope and believe that our confidence will not be belied in the case of the appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the changed social environment which has taken place in the meantime, it is our considered view that the sentence of life imprisonment should be modified to the period already undergone (about 13

years 7 months). Before being released from jail in the case, the appellant will notify the jail authority the place and the address at which he intends to stay, on receipt of which the jail authority will intimate the Superintendent of Police of that place with a request to him to keep the appellant under observation. If the Superintendent of Police finds that the appellant is indulging in any illegal activity which amounts to an offence under any law, he shall immediately send a report to the Registrar General of this Court. With this modification of sentence as noted above, this appeal is dismissed."

10. In the case in hand also, appellant is a young lady aged about

29 years having a girl child aged 12 years. It cannot be denied that

the young daughter of the appellant definitely needs care and

protection of her mother. As per the nominal roll sent by Deputy

Superintendent, Central Jail No. 6, Tihar, the appellant has already

undergone incarceration for a period of 02 years, 11 months and 16

days (actual) as on 03rd February, 2011 and she has also earned

remission in sentence for a period of 09 months and 21 days. The

unexpired portion of the sentence awarded the appellant is 02

months and 23 days as on 03rd February, 2011. If 06 days of

custody after 03rd February, 2011 are counted from then, the

unexpired portion of the sentence of the appellant is 02 months and