Parvez vs State
2013 Latest Caselaw 3398 Del

$-37
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        DECIDED ON : 1st AUGUST, 2013

+                           CRL.A.34/2011

       PARVEZ                                              ..... Appellant

                            Through :    Mr.Salim Malik, Advocate.


                            versus

       STATE                                        ..... Respondent

                            Through :    Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court)

1. Parvez (the appellant) impugns judgment dated 06.10.2010 of

learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 74/2008 arising

out of FIR No. 248/2006 PS Gokalpuri by which he was convicted under

Sections 498A/304B IPC. By an order dated 13.10.2010 he was sentenced

to undergo RI for ten years under Section 304B IPC and RI for three years

with fine ` 20,000/- under Section 498A IPC.

2. Allegations against the appellant were that he was married to

Smt.Anisa on 20.11.2005. On 03.04.2006 Anisa committed suicide at the

matrimonial house No.114, New MUstafabad, Eidgah Gate. Daily Diary

(DD) No. 18A was assigned to SI Imadul Islam who with Const.Virender

went to the spot. SDM was informed. The body was sent to mortuary,

GTB Hospital. On 07.04.2006, Abida Begum (victim's mother) got her

statement recorded and the First Information Report was lodged. Parvez,

Nawab, Nazma and Chand Bibi were suspected for committing the

offence. Abida Begum leveled allegations against them for harassment to

her daughter- Anisa on account of dowry demand. During the course of

investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were

recorded. The accused persons were arrested. After completion of

investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against all of them. They were

duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined eleven

witnesses. In their 313 statements, the accused persons pleaded false

implication. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and

appreciating the evidence on record, the Trial Court, by the impugned

judgment, held only Parvez guilty for the offence mentioned previously

and sentenced him accordingly. Three others - Nawab, Nazma and Chand

Bibi were acquitted of the charges. It is significant to note that the State

did not prefer any appeal against their acquittal. Being aggrieved, the

appellant has preferred the appeal.

3. During the course of hearing, appellant's counsel on

instructions stated at Bar that the appellant - Parvez has opted not to

challenge his conviction under Sections 498A/304B IPC and accepts it

voluntarily. He however, prayed to take lenient view as he has already

undergone the substantial period of substantive sentence awarded to him

and he is not a previous convict.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

examined the record. Since the appellant has not opted to challenge

findings of the Trial Court on conviction under Sections 498A/304B IPC,

his conviction stands affirmed. The appellant - Parvez was sentenced to

undergo RI for ten years with fine ` 20,000/-. Nominal roll dated

24.07.2013 reveals that he has already undergone seven years, three

months and sixteen days incarceration as on 24.07.2013. He also earned

remission for ten months and fifteen days. Nominal roll further reveals

that he is not a previous convict and is not involved in any criminal case.

His overall jail conduct is satisfactory. He is in custody from the

inception. His other relatives who were impleaded in the case succeeded

in getting acquittal. He is the sole bread earner of the family and has clean

antecedents. He is to take care of his old aged parents who are suffering

from various ailments. The injuries on the victim's body depicted in the

post-mortem report were 'bruises' which show that she was given

beatings prior to the incident. However, the beatings given to the victim

are covered under Section 498A IPC whereby she was treated with cruelty

by the appellant - Parvez. Those injuries were not sufficient to cause

death in the ordinary course of nature.

5. Taking into consideration all these mitigating circumstances,

the order on sentence is modified and the appellant - Parvez is sentenced

to undergo RI for eight and a half year with fine ` 5,000/- and failing to

pay the fine to undergo SI for one month under Section 304B/498A IPC.

6. Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial Court

record be sent back forthwith along with copy of the order.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

AUGUST 01, 2013 tr