Delhi High Court
Sheela vs State (Govt. Of Nct) Of Delhi on 1 August, 2013
Author: S. P. Garg
$~48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 1st August, 2013
+ CRL.A. 389/2013
SHEELA
..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Inderjeet Sidha, Advocate.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI
..... Respondent
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. The appellant challenges the correctness and legality of the
judgment dated 13.10.2011 in Sessions Case No.17/2011 arising out of FIR
No.71/2011 registered at police station Bhalaswa Dairy by which she was
convicted for committing offence under Section 363 IPC. By an order
dated 18.10.2011, she was sentenced to undergo RI for three years with
fine `500/-.
2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 23/24.04.2011 in
between 9.45 PM and 10:00 P.M. at the back of House No.A-2/167, JJ
Colony, Bhalaswa Dairy she kidnapped a child Ankush, aged one year, in
order that he may be murdered or may be so disposed off to give 'Bali" and
drowned the child in the water in an attempt to kill him for that purpose.
DD No.59B was assigned to SI Rajender who with Constable Satish
reached at A-2, JJ Colony, Bhalsawa Dairy on 23.04.2011. He found a
crowd present in front of House No.164/A-2, JJ Colony, Bhalsawa, Delhi.
Kamlesh and Daya Ram had caught hold Sheela and a child was recovered
from her. SI Rajender recorded Kamlesh's statement and lodged First
Information Report. She disclosed that Sheela, who used to do tantra-
mantra, came to her house and took her son Ankur when she had gone to
toilet. She went in the street in search of her child and saw Sheela running
towards her house. She found Daya Ram with her son whose clothes were
wet. He informed her that her son was lying in the water and was taken out
by him. Sheela was arrested. The Investigating Officer recorded the
statement of witnesses conversant with the facts. After completion of
investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against her for committing
offence under Section 364/307 IPC. She was duly charged and brought to
trial. The prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove the appellant's
guilt. In her 313 statement, she pleaded false implication. On appreciating
the evidence and after considering the rival submissions of the parties, the
Trial Court by the impugned judgment convicted her under Section 363
IPC. It is relevant to note that the State did not challenge her acquittal
under Section 307/364 IPC.
3. During the course of hearing, appellant's counsel on
instructions stated at Bar that the appellant has opted not to challenge her
conviction under Section 363 IPC. She, however, prayed to take lenient
view as she has undergone the substantial substantive sentence awarded to
her. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has no objection to
this.
4. Since the appellant has opted not to challenge the findings of
the Trial Court on conviction under Section 363 IPC and has accepted it
voluntarily, her conviction under Section 363 is confirmed. It transpires
that she was sentenced to undergo RI for three years with fine `500/-.
Nominal roll dated 04.03.2013 reveals that she has already undergone one
year, ten months and eight days incarceration. She has also earned
remission for five months and fourteen days as on 01.03.2013. The
unexpired portion is now less than four months. She is not a previous
convict and is not involved in any other criminal case. Her overall jail
conduct is satisfactory. She is in custody from the very inception. She has
earned acquittal under Section 364/307 IPC. She is illiterate and is a
labour. She has two children to take care of. Taking into consideration all
these mitigating circumstances, the order on sentence is modified and she is
ordered to be released for the period already undergone by her in this case
which is more than two and a half years.
5. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.
6. Copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent Jail.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
AUGUST 01, 2013
sa
