Korem Sagar, Another, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 3187 Tel

          THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

           CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1537 of 2007

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 & 401 of

Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioners/A1 and A2, challenging the

judgment, 03.10.2007, passed in Criminal Appeal No.186 of 2006 by

the II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial, whereby, the

judgment, dated 23.11.2006, passed in S.C.No.739 of 2004 by the

Assistant Sessions Judge at Jagtial, convicting the petitioners/A1 and

A2 for the offences under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC and

sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven

years and to pay fine of Rs.200/-, in default, to undergo simple

imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 306 of

IPC; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to

pay fine of Rs.200/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for

one month for the offence under Section 498A of IPC, was confirmed.

2. Heard the submissions of Sri D.Bhaskar Reddy, the learned

counsel for the revision petitioners/A1 & A2, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and perused the

record.

3. The facts of the case, as per the charge-sheet filed in this case,

in brief, are that one Korem Chamanthi @ Sammakka (the deceased) JS, J Crl.R.C.No.1537 of 2007

was the daughter of PW.1-Moodumadugula Ramachandram and

PW2-Moodumadugula Hanmakka, who are residents of Hamuraji, a

village in Maharashtra State. The marriage of the deceased was

performed with petitioner/A1, who is a dumb person. The couple

were blessed with a male child, who was aged about fifteen months

as on the date of the death of the deceased. About five months prior

to the death of the deceased, PW.2 went to Jaggasagar Village to see

her daughter. She was told by the deceased about harassment being

meted out to her by the petitioner/A2. PW.2 also came to know that

the deceased was subjected to harassment by the petitioner/A2,

asking the deceased to attend coolie work to earn money. When the

younger brother of the deceased by name Mahesh went to see his

sister, he also came to know that the deceased was harassed by the

petitioner/A1. According to the prosecution, on 23.10.2003, some of

the villagers of Jaggasagar went to the house of PW.1 at Hamuraji

village and informed him that his daughter (deceased) was admitted

in the hospital with stomach pain. PW.1 and others went to

Jaggasagar village on the same day. At about 07:30 PM, when they

reached Jaggasagar village, they found the dead body of his

daughter, hanging inside the house of the petitioners/A1 and A2.

Thereupon, PW.1 lodged a complaint with the police concerned

against the petitioners/A1 and A2 alleging that his daughter might

have committed suicide due to the continuous harassment meted out JS, J Crl.R.C.No.1537 of 2007

to her by the petitioners/A1 and A2 or they might have killed her and

concocted a story that it was a suicidal death.

4. Basing on the said report lodged by PW.1, PW9-Sub-inspector

of Police, Metpalli, registered a case in Crime No.157/2003 initially

under Section 174 of Cr.P.C; Basing on the statements of PWs.1 to 6,

PW.9 filed a requisition before the Magistrate concerned to alter the

Section of law from Section 174 of Cr.P.C., to Sections 306 and 498A

of IPC; completed the investigation and laid charge sheet before the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Metpalli. The learned Magistrate

took cognizance against the petitioners/A1 and A2 for the offences

under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC vide P.R.C.No.17 of 2004 and

committed the case to the Court of Session under Section 209 of

Cr.P.C., since the offence under Section 306 is exclusively triable by

the Court of Session. The Court of Session numbered the case as

S.C.No.739 of 2004 and made it over the trial Court, for trial and

disposal in accordance with law.

5. The trial Court, after analyzing the entire material on record,

found the petitioners/A1 and A2 guilty of the offences punishable

under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC and sentenced them as stated

supra. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/A1 and A2 preferred

Criminal Appeal No.186 of 2005 before the lower appellate Court and

the lower appellate Court, on re-appreciating the entire evidence on JS, J Crl.R.C.No.1537 of 2007

record, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence

imposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioners/A1 and A2 filed this Criminal Revision Case.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 and A2 would

contend that the judgment of the lower appellate Court is

unsustainable in the eye of law. The petitioners/A1 and A2 are

innocent. Except bald allegations of harassment against the

petitioners/A1 and A2, no specific overt acts have been attributed

against them. The evidence of prosecution witnesses are not

corroborating with each other. The allegations in the charge sheet do

not prima facie constitute offences under Sections 306 and 498A of

IPC. The petitioners/A1 and A2 never abetted the deceased to

commit suicide nor harassed her mentally and physically, demanding

additional dowry. Further, there are no direct witnesses to the

alleged offence. The evidence of PWs.1 to 5 is only hear-say

evidence, which cannot be acted upon. Without any cogent and

convincing evidence on record, the trial Court erroneously recorded

conviction and sentence against the petitioners/A1 and A2 for the

offences under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC, which was confirmed

by the lower appellate Court. The impugned judgment suffers from

illegality, impropriety and irregularity and warrants interference of

this Court under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. and ultimately prayed JS, J Crl.R.C.No.1537 of 2007

to allow the Criminal Revision Case by setting aside the impugned

judgment of the Court below and acquit the petitioners/A1 and A2 for

the offences under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC.

7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

appearing on behalf of the respondent-State would contend that

there is ample evidence on record to prove the guilt of the

petitioners/A1 and A2 for the offences under Sections 306 and 498A

of IPC. The petitioners/A1 and A2 abetted the deceased to commit

suicide apart from harassing her mentally and physically. The

evidence of PW.1 to PW.5 is cogent and consistent and there are no

material omissions and inconsistencies in their evidence. Further, the

evidence of PW.1 to PW.5 finds corroboration with each other. All the

necessary ingredients of sections 306 and 498A of IPC have been

made out against the petitioners/A1 and A2. There is no patent

illegality or irregularity in the judgment under challenge so as to

interfere with the same under Revisional jurisdiction of this Court

under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. The contentions raised on

behalf of the petitioners/A1 and A2 are untenable and ultimately

prayed to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case.

8. I have considered the above rival submissions and meticulously

gone through entire material on record. This Court is aware of the

settled legal position that this Court, in exercise of its Revisional JS, J Crl.R.C.No.1537 of 2007

jurisdiction under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., cannot interfere

with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below,

unless they are perverse or arrived at ignoring material evidence.

Further, the Revisional power of this Court under Sections 397 and

401 of Cr.P.C., is not to be equated with that of an appeal. But

however, when the decision of the Court below is perverse or

untenable in law or grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or

based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored

or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously,

this Court can interfere with the said decision, in exercise of its

Revisional jurisdiction.

9. Keeping the above settled legal position in mind, if we look at

the facts of the case, the petitioners/A1 and A2 are convicted for the

offences under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC. Section 306 of IPC

deals with abetment of suicide and Section 107 of IPC deals with

abetment of a thing. They read as follows:

306. Abetment of suicide -- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

107. Abetment of a thing -- A person abets the doing of a thing, who -

Firstly.-- Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly.-- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an JS, J Crl.R.C.No.1537 of 2007

act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly.-- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1. A person by willful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Randhir Sinigh Vs. State of

Punjab1, held as follows:

"Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also, it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC."

11. In State of W.B. Vs. Orilal Jaiswal2, the Hon'ble Apex Court

observed that the Courts should be extremely careful in assessing

the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced

in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out

to the victim had, in fact, induced her to end the life by committing

suicide. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide

was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in

(2004) 13 Supreme Court Cases 139

(1994) 1 Supreme Court Cases 73 JS, J Crl.R.C.No.1537 of 2007

domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim

belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not

expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given

society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be

satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the

offence of suicide should be found guilty.

12. Further, in Kishori Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh3, the

Hon'ble Court gave a clear exposition of Section 107 of IPC,

observing as follows:

"Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. "Abetted" in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence."

13. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken a consistent view that

before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section

306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and

(2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 797 JS, J Crl.R.C.No.1537 of 2007

circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced

before it, in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment

meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative

but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in

cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or

indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on

the allegation of harassment, without their being any positive action

proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused,

which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction

under Section 306 of IPC is not sustainable. In order to bring a case

within the purview of Section 306 of IPC, there must be a case of

suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person, who is

said to have abetted the commission of suicide, must have played an

active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act, to facilitate

the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the

person charged with the offence under Section 306 of IPC must be

proved and established by the prosecution, before he/she could be

convicted under the said section of law.

14. Reverting back to the factual position of the instant case, there

is no proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement by the

petitioners/A1 and A2 to the commission of suicide. As per the

evidence of PWs.3-Attela Manikyam, the cousin sister of the JS, J Crl.R.C.No.1537 of 2007

deceased, she was told by the deceased that the petitioner/A2 and

the sister of the petitioner/A2 used to harass her for dowry and they

forced her to attend coolie work. As per the evidence of PW.4-

P.Sharada, sister of the deceased, she was told by the deceased that

the petitioners/A1 and A2 were abusing her and they forced her to

attend coolie work. As per the evidence of PW.5-Bandi Venkatamma,

the person who settled the marriage of the deceased with the

petitioner/A1, she was told by the deceased that the petitioner/A2

was harassing her and forcing her to attend the coolie work. Except

the allegation that the petitioners/A1 and A2 were harassing the

deceased to attend coolie work, the prosecution could not establish

the any active role played by the petitioners/A1 and A2, which

instigated/provoked the deceased to commit suicide. Mere allegation

of harassment without there being cogent evidence showing positive

action of the accused that led/compelled the deceased to commit

suicide, conviction under Section 306 of IPC is not sustainable.

Further, the prosecution could not produce any independent witness

to show that the petitioners/A1 and A2 have instigated/provoked the

deceased to commit suicide. There is no evidence to show that the

petitioners/A1 and A2 abetted the deceased to commit suicide.

Though the trial Court took a view that unless there is a high degree

of harassment by the petitioners/A1 and A2, the deceased had no

necessity to end her life by hanging herself leaving her small son to JS, J Crl.R.C.No.1537 of 2007

the accused, as observed supra, merely on the allegation of

harassment, charge or conviction of the petitioners/A1 and A2 for the

offence under Section 306 of IPC is unsustainable. The prosecution

failed to bring home the guilt of the petitioners/A1 and A2 for the

offence under Section 306 of IPC. Thus, the conviction and sentence

recorded against the petitioners/A1 and A2 for the offence under

Section 306 of IPC by the trial Court as confirmed by the lower

appellate Court, is patently illegal, perverse and glaringly

unreasonable, which resulted in miscarriage of justice and the same

warrants interference by this Court under the Revisional jurisdiction

under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the conviction and

sentence recorded against the petitioners/A1 and A2 for the offence

under Section 306 of IPC is hereby set aside.

15. As regards the offence under Section 498A of IPC, the said

section of law reads as follows:

498A Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation-For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-

(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental of physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet JS, J Crl.R.C.No.1537 of 2007

any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Girdhar Shankar Tawade Vs.

State of Maharashtra4, gave a succinct enumeration of the object

and ingredients of Section 498A of IPC. It was observed as follows:

"The basic purport of the statutory provision is to avoid 'cruelty' which stands defined by attributing a specific statutory meaning attached thereto as noticed herein before. Two specific instances have been taken note of in order to ascribe a meaning to the word 'cruelty' as is expressed by the legislatures : Whereas explanation (a) involves three specific situations viz., (i) to drive the woman to commit suicide or (ii) to cause grave injury or (iii) danger to life, limb or health, both mental and physical, and thus involving a physical torture or atrocity, in explanation (b) there is absence of physical injury but the legislature thought it fit to include only coercive harassment which obviously as the legislative intent expressed is equally heinous to match the physical injury : whereas one is patent, the other one is latent but equally serious in terms of the provisions of the statute since the same would also embrace the attributes of 'cruelty' in terms of Section 498-A."

17. In the instant case, PW.1-father of the deceased categorically

deposed in his evidence that the deceased used to inform him that

the accused demanded dowry and she was not willing to reside in the

house of the accused. Due to poverty, PW.1 could not meet the

demands of the petitioners/A1 and A2 and asked the deceased to

remain in the house of the petitioners/A1 and A2. PW.2-mother of

the deceased deposed in her evidence that whenever the deceased

went to the house of PW.1 and PW.2, she used to weep and inform

(2002) 5 Supreme Court Cases 177 JS, J Crl.R.C.No.1537 of 2007

that the petitioner/A2 was harassing her and forced her to go for

coolie work and that though the deceased was not ready to go back

to her matrimonial home, PW.1 and PW.2 convinced her and sent her

to matrimonial home. In her cross-examination, PW.2 categorically

denied the suggestion that the petitioners/A1 and A2 never harassed

the deceased. PW.3-cousin sister of the deceased also deposed in

her evidence that she was told by the deceased that the

petitioners/A1 and A2 were harassing the deceased and the deceased

was not willing to go back to her matrimonial house. PW.3 also

denied the suggestion that the petitioners/A1 and A2 never harassed

the deceased and did not commit any offence. The evidence of

PW.4-sister of the deceased assumes importance. She deposed that

she was told by the deceased that the petitioners/A1 and A2 are

abusing her and they forced her to do coolie work. PW.4 further

deposed that on the date of offence, she saw the deceased at about

03:30 PM, while she was going to village outskirts for answering the

calls of nature. When PW.4 stopped the deceased, the deceased did

not give proper reply and expressed that she was still facing

troubles. On the same day evening, the petitioner/A1 went to her

and informed about the death of the deceased through gestures.

18. It is culled out from the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 that the

petitioners/A1 and A2 used to harass the deceased to do coolie work.

JS, J Crl.R.C.No.1537 of 2007

Though PW.1 to PW.4, being the parents and sisters of the deceased,

are interested witnesses, their evidence cannot be thrown out, but

has to be examined carefully before accepting the same. When the

statements of interested witnesses find corroboration with other

witnesses and the circumstances of the case clearly depict complete

chain of evidence pointing out the guilt of the accused, then the

evidence of interested witnesses can be relied upon. PW.5 is an

independent witness in this case and she is the person who settled

the marriage of the deceased with the accused No.1. She deposed in

her evidence that she was told by the deceased that the

petitioner/A2 was harassing her and forcing her to attend coolie work

and that though she tried to convince the deceased and also met the

accused and requested them to treat the deceased properly. In her

cross-examination, PW.5 also categorically denied the suggestion

that the petitioners/A1 and A2 never harassed the deceased.

Further, there is evidence of PW.7-Dr.Sambasiva Rao, the doctor

who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on

24.10.2003. He categorically deposed that he noticed five anti-

mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased, i.e., (1)

contusion sub-cutaneous injury all over the thins on both sides,

except on posterior side up to knees, age of the wounds is four days;

(2) contusion sub-cutaneious hemorrhage on both shoulders,

extended up to chest, upper part of chest on both sides, including JS, J Crl.R.C.No.1537 of 2007

axilla. They are anti-mortem injuries, aged about 4 days; (3)

Laceration 5" x 2" inside below the vagina and it was caused by blunt

object anti-mortem and aged about 4 days; (4) Contusion sub-

cutaneious hemorrhage from knees to ankles on both sides caused

by blunt object anti mortem and aged about 4 days; and (5) Hanging

mark (ligature mark) up to ears on both sides. PW.7 also deposed

that he found fracture of Hyoid bone on left side and sub-coetaneous

hemorrhage on the upper chest wall, breasts on both sides. PW.7

opined that the deceased died due to asphyxia due to hanging within

48 hours before post mortem. In his cross-examination, PW.7

deposed that if the body had struggled for death and hit the walls,

the injuries mentioned in Ex.P3 can be caused. However, PW.7 was

of the opinion that it was a suicide, but not homicide. In Ex.P2-

inquest report, there is a clear mention that the inquestdars have

noticed some injuries over the chest abdomen, below shoulders and

thighs. However, the inquest panchanama shows that the injuries

were caused by hands. Further, there is clear mention in column 7

of Ex.P.2 that when a lady panch witness inspected the dead body of

the deceased, she found both the thighs of the deceased were

swollen and turned to black colour. As per the evidence of PW.7-

doctor, all the above injuries are anti-mortem injuries aged about

four days and caused by a blunt object. The deceased was

admittedly residing with the petitioners/A1 and A2 in their house.

JS, J Crl.R.C.No.1537 of 2007

Further, it is not the case of the petitioners/A1 and A2 that the

deceased had a quarrel with any other person and hence, the

possibility of her receiving the injuries in the hands of a third person

does not arise. As per the evidence of PWs.1 to 6, the deceased was

convinced and sent back to her matrimonial home and she was

forced to stay back with the petitioners/A1 and A2. Here, it is apt to

state that whether one spouse has been guilty of cruelty to the other

is essentially a question of fact. The impact of the complaints,

accusations or taunts on a person amounting to cruelty depends on

various factors like sensitivity of the individual victim concerned,

social background, environment, education etc. In the instant case,

all the above incidents coupled with the evidence of the prosecution

witness clinchingly establish that the deceased was subjected to

cruelty by the petitioners/A1 and A2. Under these circumstances,

conviction recorded against the petitioners/A1 and A2 by both the

Courts below for the offence under Section 498A of IPC cannot be

held to be perverse, illegal or irregular, warranting interference of

this Court under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., and the same is

hereby upheld.

19. As far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, determining

the adequacy of sentence to be awarded in a given case is not an

easy task, so also evolving a uniform sentencing policy. That is JS, J Crl.R.C.No.1537 of 2007

because the quantum of sentence that may be awarded depends

upon a variety of factors including mitigating circumstances peculiar

to a given case. The Courts generally exercise considerable amount

of discretion in the matter of determining the quantum of sentence.

In doing so, the Courts would be influenced in varying degrees by the

reformative, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment, delay in

the conclusion of the trial and legal proceedings, the age of the

accused, his/her physical/health condition, the nature of the offence,

the weapon used and in the cases of illegal gratification the amount

of bribe, loss of job and family obligations of accused are also some

of the considerations that weigh heavily with the Courts while

determining the sentence to be awarded. The Courts have not

attempted to exhaustively enumerate the considerations that go into

determination of the quantum of sentence nor have the Courts

attempted to lay down the weight that each one of these

considerations carry. That is because any such exercise is neither

easy nor advisable, given the myriad situations in which the question

may fall for determination. Broadly speaking, the Courts have

recognized the factors mentioned earlier as being relevant to the

question of determining the sentence. There is plethora of

judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this subject.

JS, J Crl.R.C.No.1537 of 2007

20. In B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Administration5, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, while reducing the punishment to the period already

undergone by the accused therein, laid down the general principles

that are to be borne in mind by the Courts while determining the

quantum of punishment. It was observed as follows:-

"The sentence of imprisonment can be for a lesser period but in that event the Court has to assign special reasons which must be recorded in writing. In considering the special reasons the judicial discretion of the Court is as wide as the demand of the cause of substantial justice. Now the question of sentence is always a difficult question, requiring as it does, proper adjustment and balancing of various considerations which weigh with a judicial mind in determining its appropriate quantum in a given case. The main purpose of the sentence broadly stated is that the accused must realise that he has committed an act which is not only harmful to the society of which he forms an integral part, but is also harmful to his own future, both as an individual and as a member of the society. Punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as also by preventing the guilty party from repeating the offence; it is also designed to reform the offender and re-claim him as a law abiding citizen for the good of the society as a whole. Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial thinking while determining this question. In modern civilized societies, however, reformatory aspect is being given somewhat greater importance. Too lenient as well as too harsh sentences both lose their efficaciousness. One does not deter and the other may frustrate thereby making the offender a hardened criminal. In the present case, after weighing the considerations already noticed by us and the fact that to send the appellant back to jail now after 7 years of the agony and harassment of these proceedings when he is also going to lose his job and to earn a living for himself and for his family members and for those dependent on him, we feel that it would meet the ends of justice if we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone but increase the sentence of fine from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 400/-. Period of imprisonment in case of default will remain the same."

21. Further, in the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

V.K. Verma v. CBI6, it was held as follows:-

(1974) 3 SCC 85

(2014) 3 SCC 485 JS, J Crl.R.C.No.1537 of 2007

"In imposing a punishment, the concern of the court is with the nature of the act viewed as a crime or breach of the law. The maximum sentence or fine provided in law is an indicator on the gravity of the act. Having regard to the nature and mode of commission of an offence by a person and the mitigating factors, if any, the court has to take a decision as to whether the charge established falls short of the maximum gravity indicated in the statute, and if so, to what extent.

The long delay before the courts in taking a final decision with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the accused is one of the mitigating factors for the superior courts to take into consideration while taking a decision on the quantum of sentence.

The Appellant is now aged 76. We are informed that he is otherwise not keeping in good health, having had also cardio vascular problems. The offence is of the year 1984. It is almost three decades now. The accused has already undergone physical incarceration for three months and mental incarceration for about thirty years. Whether at this age and stage, it would not be economically wasteful, and a liability to the State to keep the Appellant in prison, is the question we have to address. Having given thoughtful consideration to all the aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the facts mentioned above would certainly be special reasons for reducing the substantive sentence but enhancing the fine, while maintaining the conviction."

22. While determining the quantum of sentence, the Court is

expected to strike balance between too harsh and too lenient view.

Balancing has to be done between the rights of the accused and the

needs of society at large. It would also be a daunting challenge to

preserve the trust of citizens when using the authority of the Courts

to convict an accused. In the instant case, the incident pertains to

the year 2003, i.e., more than 19 years ago. As per the material

available on record, the petitioners/A1 and A2 have already

undergone physical incarceration for about 36 days and mental

trauma for about 19 years. Keeping in view the provisions of Article

21 of the Constitution of India and the interpretation thereof qua the JS, J Crl.R.C.No.1537 of 2007

right of an accused to a speedy trial, judicial compassion can play a

role and a convict can be compensated for the mental agony which

he undergoes on account of protracted trial. Under these

circumstances, directing the petitioners/A1 and A2 to serve the

remaining period of sentence imposed upon them for the offence

under Section 498A of IPC would be unfair. Article 21 of the

Constitution would bring within its sweep, not only expeditious trial

but disposal of appeals and revisions. Having given thoughtful

consideration to all the aspects of the matter, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the facts mentioned above would certainly be

special reasons for reducing the substantive sentence of

imprisonment, while maintaining the conviction for the offence under

Section 498A of IPC. Considering the totality of the circumstances,

this Court deems it appropriate that if the sentence of imprisonment

imposed against the petitioners/A1 and A2 for the offence under

Section 498A of IPC is modified to the period already undergone by

them, the same would sub-serve the ends of justice.

23. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and

sentence recorded against the petitioners/A1 and A2 for the offence

under Section 306 of IPC is set aside. The conviction of the

petitioners/A1 and A2 for the offence under Section 498A of IPC is

maintained, but however, the sentence of imprisonment imposed

against the petitioners/A1 and A2 for the offence under Section 498A JS, J Crl.R.C.No.1537 of 2007

of IPC is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone

by them. The fine amount of Rs.1,500/- imposed for the offence

under Section 498A of IPC is also maintained, along with default

sentence.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal

Revision Case shall stand closed.

___________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J 1st, July, 2022 Ksk