Delhi High Court
Mahmood & Anr. vs State on 21 May, 2014
Author: S. P. Garg
$-13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 21st MAY, 2014
+ CRL.A.No. 369/2000
MAHMOOD & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through : Mr.Manoj Bhandari, 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. Mahmood (A-1) and Sayed Ahmed (A-2) impugn their
conviction under Sections 498A/34 IPC by a judgment dated 22.04.2000
of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 29/95 arising
out of FIR No. 199/94 PS Sadar Bazar. By an order dated 01.05.2000,
they were sentenced to undergo RI for two years with fine ` 5,000/- each.
2. The appellants were charge-sheeted for committing offences
under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC. On 11.08.1994, Daily Diary (DD)
No.12A was recorded regarding the incident and the investigation was
assigned to ASI Doodh Nath. He went to RML Hospital and obtained
MLC of the victim Saira who was unfit to make statement. The
Investigating Officer informed SDM, Kotwali, who recorded her
statement on 12.08.1994. Subsequently, she succumbed to the injuries.
The prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove the case. In 313
statements, the appellants pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in
their conviction under Sections 498A/34 IPC. They were acquitted of the
charge under Section 304B IPC. It is pertinent to mention that State did
not challenge their acquittal for the said offence.
3. During the course of arguments on appeal, the appellants
settled the dispute with Mohd.Suleman and Fatma, parents of the deceased
Saira. Compromise deed dated 05.02.2014 was placed on record. The
deceased's parents appeared before the Court and informed that the said
settlement has arrived at with the appellants with their free consent
without any fear or pressure. The daughters of the deceased who were
brought up by the appellants also appeared before the Court and spoke in
favour of the settlement. The Investigating Officer present in the Court
has verified the settlement arrived at between the parties. The appellants
have given up challenge to the findings recorded under Sections 498A/34
IPC and have prayed either to release the appellants on probation or for
the period already undergone by them. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor
has no objection to modify the sentence order in view of the settlement
arrived at between the parties.
4. The appellants were acquitted of the main charge under
Section 304B IPC and were convicted under Sections 498A/34 IPC only.
The marriage of the deceased took place in 1989. Three children namely
Farahnaaz (23 years), Mehjaminaz (21 years) and Mehfooj (20 years)
were born out of this wedlock. The incident in which Saira died an
unfortunate death took place in 1994. The appellants have suffered agony
/ ordeal of trial for about 20 years. They also remained in custody for
seven days. A-2 is aged about 87 years and is suffering from various
ailments. It has come on record that the children were brought up by the
appellants in the matrimonial home. They have also no grievance against
the appellants and prayed to dispose of the appeal modifying the sentence
order. Parents of the deceased have also stated that the settlement has been
arrived to maintain harmonious relations with the appellants. Considering
all these mitigating circumstances, no useful purpose will be served to put
the appellants to jail.
5. Since the appellants have opted not to challenge the findings
of the Trial Court under Section 498A/34 IPC, maintaining their
conviction under that Section, the sentence order is modified and the
period already spent by the appellants in custody is taken as the
substantive sentence.
6. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial Court
record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the order. A copy of the
order be sent to the Superintendent jail for information.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
MAY 21, 2014 / tr
