2010 Sabra Begam & Anr. v. State of U.T. Chandigarh

Present: Ms. Naveen Malik, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for U.T. Chandigarh. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL)

The present appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1.4.2002 (hereinafter as ‘impugned judgment’) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh (hereinafter as ‘trial Court’), whereby the accused-appellants stand convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307/34 and 498-A IPC and were awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 307/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The accused have been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years CRA No.555-SB of 2002 - 2 - and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 498-A, IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. Both the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

The brief facts of the case are that on 15.11.1998, SI Om Parkash of Police Station, Industrial Area, Chandigarh, received a telephonic message that one woman and one man have been set on fire at Hut No.150, Block K, Colony No.4, Chandigarh. He reached at the spot along with two constables. He came to know that the injured have been removed to Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh. On reaching the hospital, he found that one Sabnam alias Pinky and her husband, Shahjad, were admitted on account of burn injuries.

In her statement made on 16.11.1998 at 5.50 p.m., before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chandigarh, Sabnam, inter alia, stated that Sabra Begam, her mother-in-law, burnt her by pouring kerosene oil on her in the presence of Sanjida Begam, her sister-in- law. She further stated that she was kept properly for one month after the marriage but thereafter, she was being subjected to harassment by the accused.

On the basis of the statement made by the injured- Sabnam, investigations were carried out by SI Om Parkash, and the accused were arrested on 17.11.1998.

Charges under Sections 307/34 and 498-A, IPC were framed against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses, namely, Deepak Midha as PW1, C. CRA No.555-SB of 2002 - 3 - Yashpal as PW2, C. Vinod Kumar (Photographer) as PW3, Asha as PW4, Mumtaj Ahmed as PW5, Sabnam (complainant) as PW6, C. Surinder Kumar as PW7, H.C. Suresh Kumar as PW8, Ashish Ahuja as PW9, H.C. Kulbir Singh as PW10, Hanish Ahmed as PW11, Dr. Surajit Sinha as PW12, Dr. Soni Charles as PW13, SI Om Parkash (Investigating Officer) as PW14 and H.C. Baldev Singh as PW15.

Thereafter the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. while putting them all the incriminating circumstances came on record against them in the prosecution evidence wherein they denied all the allegations and claimed to be innocent. In defence, they produced Jaker Hussain as DW1; Shahjad as DW2; accused- Sabra Begam as DW3; and accused-Sanjida Begam as DW4.

After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offence and the term as indicated at the outset in para 1 hereinabove.

Learned counsel for the appellants states that the parties have now compromised the matter and has placed on record a compromise dated 20.08.2010 duly signed by both the parties and the same is duly attested on 24.9.2010. The same is taken on record. As per Clause 4 of the said compromise, both the parties shall have no claim against each other after the disposal of this case.

Learned State counsel does not dispute the execution of compromise dated 20.08.2010/24.09.2010 and states that he has no objection if the appellants are acquitted on the basis of said compromise.

In the matters where parties have entered into compromise, Larger Bench of this Court in 'Kulwinder Singh and CRA No.555-SB of 2002 - 4 - others V. State of Punjab and another' reported as 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, has taken the following view:- "32. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restrain. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savager. "

Since the parties have resolved all the disputes and decided to live happily, therefore, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings further against the accused-appellants.

Since the main appeal is decided as such, the misc. applications pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

26.10.2010 atulsethi (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to reporter : Yes / No