Delhi High Court
Usha vs State on 22 September, 2015
Author: S. P. Garg
$-11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2015
+ CRL.A. 19/2012
USHA ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Habibur Rahman, Advocate
along with appellant in person.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Amit Ahlawat, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)
1. The appellant - Usha along with others was convicted for
committing offences under Section 363 read with Section 368; 366/506;
376 read with Section 109 IPC by a judgment dated 05.05.2011 of learned
Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.52/2010 arising out of FIR
No.226/2007 PS Gokulpuri. By an order dated 13.05.2011, she was
sentenced to undergo various prison terms with fine.
2. Allegations against the appellant in the charge-sheet were
that on 27.03.2007, she enticed the prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name) aged
around 13 years to marry her son Tinku. On 28.03.2007 at about 07.00 or
07.30 a.m. when 'X' had gone to market to purchase some eatables, the
appellant met her on the way and after inducing her to her house. She
administered some poisonous substance in the tea, as a result of which,
'X' became unconscious. On regaining senses, she found herself in village
Issampur. It is pertinent to mention that in the village, both 'X' and Tinku
performed marriage and thereafter, she lived at his house there. The
marriage was registered at Registrar, Hindu Marriage, Chandausi, Distt.
Moradabad (U.P.). Co-convict Tinku's plea in the trial was that 'X' was a
consenting party.
3. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and on
appreciation of the evidence on record, the Trial Court convicted the
appellant and others for the offences mentioned above. Being aggrieved
and dissatisfied, the appellant has challenged her conviction in appeal.
4. During the course of arguments, the appellant voluntarily
opted not to challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction and
prayed to release her for the period already undergone by her in this case.
To this, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has no objection.
5. Since the appellant has given up challenge to conviction
voluntarily, it is affirmed / confirmed.
6. The appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for two years
with fine `1,000/- under Section 363 IPC; RI for three years with fine
`2,000/- under Section 366 read with Section 368 IPC; RI for two years
under Section 506 IPC; and, RI for four years with fine `3,000/- under
Section 376 read with Section 109 IPC. Substantive sentences were to
operate concurrently. Nominal roll dated 28.02.2012 reveals that the
appellant remained in custody for two years, nine months and seven days
besides remission for two months and twenty-seven days as on
27.02.2012. She was enlarged on bail by this Court by an order dated
07.03.2012. It further reveals that the appellant has clean antecedents and
is not involved in any other criminal case. Her overall jail conduct was
satisfactory. Nothing has surfaced if after suspension of sentence, she
indulged in any such criminal activity. Tinku and 'X' purportedly were in
love and had eloped to perform marriage. Their marriage was registered
with the Registrar. Nothing was found during investigation if any
poisonous substance was administered to the prosecutrix as a result of
which she became unconscious. The appellant was aged around 51 years.
The accused persons implicated in the case were all related and members
of one and the same family. Considering all these facts and circumstances
of the case, Sentence Order is modified to the extent that the period
already undergone by the appellant shall be taken as substantive sentence.
She shall, however, deposit the fine (if unpaid) imposed by the Trial Court
within two weeks and in default of its non-payment shall suffer SI for one
month.
7. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Copy of
the order be sent to the Trial Court. Intimation be sent to the
Superintendent Jail.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 / tr
