Criminal Appeal No. 726-SB of 1997 v. Bhoop Singh Jain

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant No.1. Ms. Hemlata Balhara, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. Ms. Vibha, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Narula, Advocate for the complainant. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) By this common order Criminal Appeal No.726-SB of 1997 and Criminal Revision No.899 of 1997 shall be decided together. Present appeal has been filed by Sanjay son of Jagdish Prashad, aged 26 years; Jagdish Prashad son of Anoop Singh, aged 73 years and Mala Devi wife of Jagdish Prashad, aged 68 years. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak had submitted report dated 8th February, 2010 forwarded by District and Sessions Judge, Rohtak, Criminal Appeal No.726-SB of 1997 2 wherein it has been stated that Jagdish Prashad and Mala Devi had expired. Photocopy of the death certificate has also been annexed with the report. Accordingly, present appeal qua Jagdish Prashad and Mala Devi, appellants No.2 and 3 respectively, is abated. Sanjay appellant is present in Court along with Mr.Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate. Mr. Aggarwal, at the outset has stated that he has perused the entire record of the case and has come to the conclusion that he will not be able to assail conviction of the appellant. However, he has prayed that in the present case, trial Court after finding the appellant Sanjay guilty of offence under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Counsel has submitted that he will only pray to this Court that there were no exceptional circumstances on the record to award sentence more than the minimum prescribed. In context of the prayer made, facts of the case can be noticed briefly. Bhoop Singh made a statement Ex.PD, which was later made basis of formal FIR Ex.PD/1. Bhoop Singh stated that he was resident of Delhi and was doing a Karyana shop. He had got two sons and four daughters. His eldest daughter Usha was married with Ganpat Lal Jain of Rohtak. Younger daughter Saroj Bala was married at Karole Bagh in Delhi with Rajinder Bansal. Third daughter Jano Devi was married at Alwar. Youngest (fourth) daughter Sushma was married at Bahadurgarh with Sanjay Kumar son of Jagdish Jain. The Marriage of Sushma was performed on 22nd June, 1991 according to customary rites. Rs.50,000/- were spent in the marriage and a draft of Rs.15,000/- was also given at the time of marriage. One week after the marriage when Sushma returned to her parental house, she was not feeling happy. The complainant and his Criminal Appeal No.726-SB of 1997 3 wife asked Sushma as to what was the matter. Sushma told that they have been deceived, as Sanjay was neither owner of the shop nor was doing any business and was also demanding money. The complainant made Sushma to understand that she should accept the destiny and adjust in her matrimonial home. In nutshell, it can be stated that on various occasions Sushma was harassed, maltreated and money was demanded, which was paid. On 20th April, 1992 a telephonic call was received that Sushma had died. A complaint was made to the police, upon which present FIR was registered. Bhoop Singh appeared as PW-5 and reiterated what was stated in the FIR. He gave various instances when to satisfy the demands of the accused, different amounts were paid. Dr.R.N. Yadav appeared as PW-1. He found that superficial to deep burns were present all over the body of Sushma wife of appellant. He had conducted autopsy on the dead body on 21st April, 1992 at 11.30 a.m. The cause of death of deceased Sushma in the opinion of doctor, was shock due to burns and its complications, which were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Mohinder Singh, Draftsman PW-2 had prepared scaled site plan Ex.PC of the spot. HC Baljit Singh PW-3 proved formal FIR Ex.PD/1. Saroj Bala, sister of the deceased Sushma, appeared as PW- 4 and corroborated the testimony of her father Bhoop Singh PW-5. SI Chatarbhuj PW-6 had recorded statement Ex.PD of Bhoop Singh, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PD/1 was registered. He also proved various facets of the investigation. Rajesh Kumar PW-7 had taken photographs of the spot. Sham Singh PW-8, who was then posted as SI/SHO at Police Station City Bahadurgarh, had partly investigated the case and submitted report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Criminal Appeal No.726-SB of 1997 4 Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and all incriminating circumstances were put to him. He denied the same and pleaded false implication. In defence, thirteen witnesses were examined. This Court need not recapitulate what was stated by the defence witnesses, as counsel for the appellant has only prayed that taking long pendency of the trial, sentence awarded upon the appellant be reduced to the minimum prescribed. In the present case, occurrence had taken place on 20th April,

1992. About 18 years are going to elapse. A perusal of the FIR Ex.PD/1, statement of Bhoop Singh PW-5 and Saroj Bala PW-4 reveals that there are no aggravating circumstances that the sentence, more than the minimum prescribed should be awarded. Accordingly, taking into consideration, that appellant has suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial for about 18 years, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded upon the appellant No.1 Sanjay is reduced from ten years rigorous imprisonment to seven years rigorous imprisonment. However, appellant No.1 Sanjay is fastened with sentence of fine of Rs.10,000/-. The same shall be deposited within three months after receipt of certified copy of this order and same shall be disbursed to the complainant as compensation. However, in case fine is not deposited, appellant No.1 Sanjay shall undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. With this modification, the appeal stands disposed of. Criminal Revision No.899 of 1997 was preferred by Bhoop Singh Jain complainant for enhancement of imprisonment. Since this Court has already reduced the sentence awarded upon appellant No.1 Sanjay from ten years to seven years rigorous imprisonment and has imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- to be disbursed as compensation to the Criminal Appeal No.726-SB of 1997 5 complainant, no separate orders are required to be passed in the revision petition filed by the complainant and the same stands disposed of accordingly. February 17, 2010 [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE