GIRJESH @ BABLOO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18th December 2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi in SC No.57509/2016 arising out of FIR No.154/2014 registered at PS Jahangirpuri convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 324 IPC. The appeal is also directed against the order on sentence dated 11th January 2018 whereby, for the offence under Section 302 IPC, he was sentenced to imprisonment for life along with payment of fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment ("SI") for one year. For the offence under Section 324 IPC, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment ("RI") for three years along with payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for two months. The sentences were directed to run consecutively.

(2.) The trial Court in effect, while convicting the Appellant for murdering his wife, acquitted him of the offences of subjecting her to cruelty and causing her dowry death. The trial Court, after noting that the two children born to the Appellant and the deceased were, after her death, residing with their grandfather at Gorakhpur in Uttar Pradesh, recommended to the Secretary of the District State Legal Services Authority, North ("DLSA") to award the children compensation in terms of Section 357A Cr PC.

(3.) During the pendency of the present appeal, this Court directed the Secretary of the Delhi State Legal Services Authority ("DSLSA") to get in touch with his counterpart in Uttar Pradesh, so that the Secretary of the DLSA at Gorakhpur could be requested to visit the Appellant's children and make arrangements with the local administration to ensure that their education is not discontinued on account of their father's incarceration. The Member Secretary of the DSLSA filed a report dated 13th August 2018 in which inter alia he stated that the Secretary of the DLSA, Gorakhpur had personally visited the house of the relatives of the Appellant, who confirmed that the Appellant's daughter had been admitted in school and had received free books and a school bag. As far as the daughter was concerned, she was residing with her aunt and was four years old. She was likely to be admitted into school next year.