Prem Lal & Anr. v. State

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? NO V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and order of sentence dated 23.9.1995 by virtue of which the appellants were convicted for an offence under Section 498A and sentenced to two years of RI and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each. It may be pertinent here to mention that in this appeal the learned Single Judge of this Court had not only upheld the conviction but also the sentence of the appellants vide order dated 05.9.2001.

2. This had led to the filing of a criminal appeal bearing No.1297/2001 before the Supreme Court and it had set aside the order dated 05.9.2001 of the High Court and 2009:DHC:3513 the entire matter afresh that is how the appeal has been reheard.

3. The facts of the prosecution case are that the appellant Manju daughter of Sh.Sobh Raj R/o House No.961, Mukherji Nagar, Delhi was married to appellant no.1 on 17.11.1985. After the marriage, Manju along with appellant no.1 and her mother in law were living in House No.961, Mukherji Nagar. The prosecution case against the appellant was that Manju was subjected to cruelty with a view to demand dowry from time to time both by appellant no.1 and appellant no.2. It is alleged that on 2nd August, 1986 at about 8.30 p.m. Manju was sitting in kitchen when her husband-appellant no.1 allegedly poured kerosene oil on her from behind and dragged her towards courtyard from where appellant no.2 is alleged to have been set ablaze with a match stick. It is alleged that the appellants stopped Manju from coming out and thereafter she is reported to have been taken to LNJP hospital by appellant no.1 where she was given treatment for her burn injuries. Initially, a case under Section 309 IPC was registered at the time of her admission in the hospital but on the next date in the morning i.e. 03.8.1986, on the basis of the alleged statement of the victim, the offence was converted into 307/34 IPC. On account of subsequent death of the injured, the said offence was further converted into 302/498A/34 IPC.

4. The appellants were put to trial. After examination of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded. The learned ASJ vide impugned judgment dated 23.9.1995 gave a finding to the effect that the death of the deceased Manju was homicidal. It also observed that the burn injuries suffered by the deceased here also not been proved to be accidental. Therefore, the only possibility of her having sustained the burn injuries with a view to commit suicide was there, which was also not approved by the learned ASJ. In the light of the aforesaid observations, the appellants who were charged for an offence u/s 302 IPC were not only acquitted of the said offence of 302 IPC but also u/s 304B of the IPC. It may be pertinent here to mention that the death of the deceased Manju was unfortunately within eight months or so from the date of her marriage.

5. The appellants were convicted only u/s 498A IPC that is for subjecting the women to cruelty with a view to extract dowry. For this, both the appellants were sentenced to RI for two years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each.

6. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly stated that the incident had taken place in the month of August, 1986 and since then nearly more than 23 years have elapsed, therefore, he is not challenging the conviction of the appellants for an offence u/s 498A IPC but is confining his submissions only on the quantum of sentence which has been imposed on the appellant. It was contended by the learned counsel that the appellant no.1 has already undergone more than eight months of incarceration after the registration of the offence and similarly so far as the appellant no.2 is concerned she has undergone incarceration of more than 9½ months in this case.

7. It is contended that both the appellants have been facing trial from 1986 onwards resulting in their conviction on 23.9.95 which is almost for a decade latter. From the date of their conviction till date, further nearly 14 years have elapsed and the sword is still hanging on them. During all these 23 years, both appellants have been subjected to tortuous trial, immense mental harassment, which in itself was a sufficient punishment to them.

8. Secondly, it was contended that so far as appellant no.2 is concerned, as on date she is nearly 67 years of age and with failing health. The mental faculties of the lady have also suffered considerably and therefore, sending her to jail at this age will not serve any purpose and would be very harsh to the appellant. It was urged that continued incarceration will only have an adverse effect and would not serve any further social purpose.

9. As regards appellant no.1, it was urged that he is working with DTC and he has been already proceeded departmentally which proceedings have been kept on hold on account of the present appeal and even if his sentence is reduced still he will be suffering the stigma of the conviction which will have wide ramifications so far as his career prospects with the DTC are concerned. It is stated that he still has ten years of service left.

10. It was urged that requiring appellant no.1 to undergo the remaining portion of his sentence, will not serve any social purpose and instead of that it is to only going to bring the appellants in contact with the hardened criminals.

11. The ld. counsel for the appellant has very fairly conceded that the appellants can be put to further terms by reducing the period of sentence of imprisonment to the period which is already undergone by them and enhancing the fine.

12. The learned APP for the State has urged that the whole purpose of sending persons to imprisonment in an offence u/s 498A is not only to punish perpetrator of this social crime but also to deter other likeminded persons from indulging in the demand of dowry and consequently subjecting the wife to cruelty. However, he urged that in this case it is the discretion of the Court to reduce the sentence of incarceration, keeping in view lot of time has elapsed from the date of incident.