Delhi High Court
Subhash Chand Sharma vs State on 5 February, 2016
Author: Suresh Kait
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 5th February, 2016
+ CRL.A.No.443/2002
SUBHASH CHAND SHARMA ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.Sunil Tiwari & Mr.Amit Saini,
Advs.
Versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Arun Kumar Sharma, APP for
the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide instant appeal under Section 374 of the Cr P C appellant
assailed the conviction judgment dated 09.04.2002 whereby he was held
guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and also
assailed order on sentence dated 24.04.2002 vide which he was sentenced
to two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of
which further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Benefit of
Section 428 of the Cr P C was also extended to him.
2. Initially, vide case FIR No.365/1992 registered at police station
Dabri, Delhi the case against the appellant was for the offences punishable
under Sections 498A/304B of the IPC. However, during trial the
prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt under
Section 304B of the IPC against appellant. Therefore, vide judgment
dated 09.04.2002, learned Trial Court acquitted the appellant thereunder,
however convicted under Section 498A of the IPC.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant under instructions
of appellant, who is personally present in the Court submits that he is not
disputing the conviction order and judgment dated 09.04.2002, however,
submits that the marriage of appellant and deceased took place on
16.05.1991 and the alleged incident is dated 27.09.1992. The deceased
left a male child, who is dependent upon appellant. Three more children
are therein the family form the second wife of appellant. He already
suffered 23 years of litigation. Appellant is 47 years of age and has prayed
that order on sentence dated 24.04.2002 may be modified and released for
the period already undergone.
4. As noted above, the incident is of the year 1992. As of now, 23
years have rolled down and appellant and his entire family has suffered
the litigation trauma over this span of time. He is having dependent wife
and four children at the age of 47 years and has all their responsibility on
his head. Out of four children, one is from the deceased. Therefore, the
ends of justice would be met if appellant is released for the period already
undergone in this case.
5. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction order and judgment
dated 09.04.2002, I hereby modify the sentence order dated 24.04.2002 to
the extent that appellant be released for the period already undergone by
him in custody.
6. The sentence awarded to the appellant was suspended vide order
dated 30.05.2002 and directed to be released on bail by this Court.
Accordingly, his bail bond cancelled and surety stands discharged.
7. In above terms, instant appeal is partially allowed and disposed of.
8. Trial Court Record be remitted back forthwith.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 05, 2016
M
