LAWS(DLH)-2017-4-200

KARTAR Vs. STATE

Decided On April 17, 2017
KARTAR Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sentence of the appellant in this matter was suspended by an order of 24.07.2002. When the appeal was taken up for hearing on 19.08.2016 none was present on behalf of the appellant and therefore bailable warrants in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- through SHO, PS Sultan Puri for appearance of the appellant were issued. Since the bailable warrants were received unserved, bailable warrants in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- against the appellant and the surety were again issued.

(2.) On 18.11.2016, keeping in mind the report of the SHO, this Court directed the trial Court to undertake the process under Section 82/83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure qua the appellant and a report be furnished to this Court. Consequent upon this order, proceedings under Section 82/83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated by the trial Court and the appellant was declared a proclaimed offender. In the interest of justice, we have appointed Ms.Arora as Amicus Curiae in the present matter to appear on behalf of the appellant.

(3.) The present appeal has been filed under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 30.05.2000 and order on sentence dated 31.05.2000 passed by the learned trial Court in FIR No.609/1996, Sessions Case No. 70/97, by virtue of which the appellant stands convicted under Section 304B/498A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.