Delhi High Court
Naresh @ Pappu vs State Nct Of Delhi on 19 December, 2017
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 19th DECEMBER, 2017
+ CRL.A. 1050/2011 & Crl.M.A.8510/2014 (u/S 482 Cr.P.C.)
NARESH @ PAPPU ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.I.A.Alvi, Advocate, along with appellant
present in person.
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Hari Shankar, Advocate, along with
complainant present in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. By a judgment dated 08.08.2011 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge
in Sessions Case No.197/2008 arising out of FIR No.57/07, Police
Station Kanjhawala, the appellant Naresh @ Pappu was held guilty for
committing offence punishable under Section 308 IPC for inflicting
injuries to his wife PW-1 (Sushila). By an order dated 10.08.2011 the
appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two
years with fine `5,000/-. Aggrieved by the said findings, the present
appeal has been filed.
2. During the course of arguments, the appellant opted to give up
challenge to the findings recorded by the Trial Court on conviction. He
urged that lenient view be taken as the matter has been
settled/compounded with the injured/complainant.
3. I have examined the file. Several injuries were inflicted by the
appellant on the person of PW-1 (Sushila), his wife on 29.03.2007 by a
sharp weapon. The prosecution was, however, unable to establish as to
what was the appellant's motive to cause injuries to his wife. It has
come on record that both the appellant and the victim were living
together at the matrimonial home and were blessed with two sons who
have since been married. The children live with the appellant in the
village. Presently, the victim is living with her father. When the matter
was listed for disposal, the complainant appeared in person and urged to
take lenient view as the matter stood settled with the appellant. The
court was not satisfied with the settlement arrived at with the appellant.
With the assistance of the counsel for the complainant as well as the
appellant, various attempts were made to reunite the parties. Even the
victim's sons were called to participate. They too supported their father;
the parties could not be reunited.
4. Again, the complainant along with her counsel prayed to release
the appellant for the period already undergone; she was not interested
for his further incarceration. The appellant was asked to pay a
reasonable amount of compensation to the victim as she would have to
maintain herself while staying with her father. Again, settlement talks
continued between the parties. By an order dated 29.07.2016, the
appellant agreed to pay `1,00,000/- to the complainant by way of
demand draft in her name within a week through Investigating Officer
without prejudice and subject to future adjustment (if any) to show
bona-fide. It was informed that the parties were exploring the
possibility of final settlement of all the disputes including divorce; the
said sum of `1,00,000/- was paid to the complainant.
5. Subsequently, the matter was settled and both the parties filed
petition to seek divorce by mutual consent. The divorce has since been
granted by the court. The complainant informed this Court that in the
divorce proceedings, she has received an amount of `4,00,000/- in all
and at present she is living with her father. She again urged the court
not to award any further sentence to the appellant.
6. Apparently, the matter has been settled with the appellant by the
victim/wife. The parties could not be reunited due to certain difficulties
informed by the appellant's counsel during arguments which need not
to be recorded in the order. This, however, finds mention in the
statement of victim's son who appeared as DW-1 (Ajay Shokeen).
7. In Ishwar Singh vs.State of Madhya Pradesh 2009 (1) JCC 593,
the Supreme Court observed that in case settlement takes place in
offence which was not compoundable, say 307 IPC, the court may take
into account a relevant important consideration about the compromise
between the parties for the purpose of reduction of sentence.
8. In the instant case, the appellant has suffered detention for certain
duration. He has suffered the ordeal of trial and appeal for about ten
years; he is 54 years old now. The matter has been settled/compounded
with the complainant amicably. Divorce between the parties has taken
place; an amount of `4,00,000/- has been paid to the complainant in full
and final satisfaction of the claims. The complainant has no objection
for reduction of the sentence.
9. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
while affirming the conviction under Section 308 IPC, Sentence Order
is modified and the appellant is sentenced to undergo the period already
spent by him in this case. Of course, he shall pay the unpaid fine (if
any) before the Trial Court within fifteen days.
10. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial Court
record along with the copy of this order be sent back forthwith.
S.P.GARG
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 19, 2017/sa
