Delhi High Court
Poonam Devi vs State, Nct Of Delhi on 20 November, 2017
$~R-6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: November 20, 2017
+ CRL.A. 23/2011
POONAM DEVI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Pradeep Khatri, Mr.Dhan
Mohan, Mr.Pranay Garg and
Mr.Pawan Mehra, Advocate
with appellant in person.
versus
STATE, NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Rajni Gupta, APP for the
State with ASI Devender
Kumar, PS Uttam Nagar.
PRATIBHA RANI, J. (Oral)
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant
impugning the judgment and order on sentence dated 21st December,
2010 passed in Sessions Case No.122/1 whereby she has been
convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 307
and 325 IPC and sentenced as under:-
(i) U/S 307 IPC : to undergo SI for three years with fine
of ₹2500/- and in default of payment
of fine, to undergo SI for six months.
(ii) U/S 325 IPC : to undergo SI for three years with fine
of ₹2500/- and in default of payment
of fine, to undergo SI for six months.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Briefly stating, the prosecution case is that on 7th December,
2002 vide DD No.16-A an information was received at PS Uttam
Nagar from Gandhi Nursing Home, Om Vihar that one lady
Smt.Savitri, aged 50 years, was admitted in the Nursing Home who
was beaten by her daughter-in-law. The said DD was assigned to SI
Vipin Kumar who alongwith Ct. Raj Kumar went to Gandhi Nursing
Home where he found injured Savitri admitted and she was 'unfit for
statement' at that time. On 12th December, 2002 Smt.Savitri Devi
made statement on the basis of which case FIR No.1032/2002 under
Section 307/325 IPC was registered at PS Uttam Nagar against her
daughter-in-law i.e. the appellant herein. The appellant was arrested
in this case and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was
filed for the offences complained of.
3. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charges framed under
Section 307/325 IPC. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all in
support of its case. Statement under Section 313 CrPC of the appellant
was recorded wherein she has denied the case of prosecution. After
trial, the appellant was convicted for committing the offence
punishable under Section 307/325 IPC and sentenced in the manner
stated above.
4. Appellant is present in person alongwith her counsel.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, submits that
appellant is not challenging her conviction in this case. However,
prayer has been made for taking a lenient view on the quantum of
sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
is a widow and having two sons. She is an illiterate lady. Presently
she alongwith her one son is living at her brother's house and her
second son is under the care and protection of her in-laws. Learned
counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant being the single
parent has to lookafter her one son hence a lenient view may be taken
on the point of sentence.
6. Since the appellant is not challenging her conviction under
Section 307/325 IPC, the same is upheld.
7. Now coming on the quantum of sentence, the injured in this
case is mother-in-law of the appellant who is also looking after one
son of the appellant and in case, the appellant is sent to Jail to undergo
the remaining substantive sentence, the son staying with her would be
the real sufferer. Taking into consideration the submissions made on
behalf of the appellant, the substantive sentence awarded to the
appellant for committing the offence punishable under Sections
307/325 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him in this
case. However, the fine imposed on the appellant is enhanced by
₹50,000/- in addition to the fine amount of ₹5,000/- imposed by the
learned Trial Court.
8. The appellant is directed to deposit the enhanced fine of
₹50,000/- with the Registrar General of this Court within four weeks,
failing which she shall undergo imprisonment for six months.
9. If the fine amount of ₹50,000/- is deposited by the appellant, the
same shall be released to the injured/victim Smt.Savitri for which the
Registrar General will issue notice to the injured/victim to appear
before him to receive the compensation amount.
10. Intimation regarding deposit of compensation amount may also
be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and
updation of record.
11. The appeal is allowed modifying the order on sentence to the
above extent.
12. TCR be sent back alongwith copy of this order. Copy of this
order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information.
As prayed, copy of the order be given dasti to learned counsel
for the appellant.
PRATIBHA RANI
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 20, 2017
'st'
