PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.2.1998 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 584/994, whereby the learned judge has held the appellant guilty under Section 304 -B IPC and 498 -A IPC and further by an order dated 2.3.1998 has sentenced the appellant to undergo RI for 10 years under Section 304 -B IPC and further ordered him to undergo RI for two year sunder Section 498 -A IPC and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was also allowed to the appellant. The case of the prosecution, as has been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, is that:

(2.) THE only point raised before me by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there were a large number of injuries on the person of the deceased other than the ligature mark of hanging. He submits that medical evidence does not give out the duration of these injuries and, Therefore, it is quite possible that the deceased had been done to death by someone other than the appellant, who was not present in the house at the time when the deceased was found hanging. He further submits that nature of injuries caused suggest that the deceased has been brutally beaten, and, thereafter, she was hung. There was no evidence on record to show that the appellant herein had any hand in beating or hanging of the deceased and in which event there could not be any offence under Section 304B IPC. I have gone through the record of the case with his assistance. PW -1, Smt. Kamlesh, is the sister of the deceased. She in her deposition has categorically stated that the deceased was occasionally subjected to severe beating on account of want of sufficient dowry. She has also categorically stated that on 5 -11 -87 the deceased was subjected to beating by the accused which fact was narrated to her by Ram Kumar. This beating was given to her one day prior to her death. PW -5, Ram Kumar, in his testimony has tried to shield the accused by not stating this fact in his examination in chief, and, Therefore, he was declared hostile. In his cross -examination by the Public Prosecutor, he states that it is correct that there used to be quarrel between Pradeep and his wife, Kumkum. PW -8, Smt. Shanti Devi, deposes to the effect that her daughter was being harassed and treated with cruelty on account of insufficient dowry. This fact is further corroborated by PW -11, Dwarka Parshad, father of the deceased and also by PW -13, Hirdesh, brother of the deceased. The trial court, on an appreciation of this evidence, came to a finding that the accused before leaving the house in the morning of the day of occurrence gave beating to the deceased and on account of that beating she committed suicide by hanging herself. This finding of the trial court is supported by the medical evidence inasmuch as multiple injuries were found on the person of the deceased and further it has been opined that death has occurred due to hanging. Upon a re -appreciation of the evidence on record, I am of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the accused in as much as there is cogent evidence on record in the form of testimony of PW -1,PW -8, PW -11 and PW -13.It is supported by medical evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty/beating on account of dowry, and, Therefore, this case is covered by Section 304B IPC as also by Section 498 -A IPC. The findings of the trial court and its appreciation of the evidence cannot be faulted with.

(3.) ON the question of sentence, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has suffered the ordeal of trial for 19 years. Appellant has already undergone four years of actual imprisonment and has got two minor children to bring up and that there is nobody else in the family to look after the children. He prays that the sentence of imprisonment of the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone. Learned counsel for the State submits that the minimum sentence of imprisonment for offence under Section 304 -B IPC is seven years and this court is not empowered to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to below the minimum. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case, ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment of the appellant is reduced from 10 years RI to 7 years RI under Section 304B IPC while maintaining the sentence under Section 498 -A IPC. Accordingly, I modify the sentence of imprisonment of the appellant under Section 304B IPC from 10 years RI to 7 years RI while maintaining the sentence of imprisonment under Section 498 -A IPC. The appellant shall be given the benefit of Section 428 IPC. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently.