Gopal and Another vs State and Others

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.—This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and orders dated 22nd of March 2006 and 24th of March

2006, whereby the appellants came to be convicted and sentenced for the commission of offence under Sections 306, 498-A Ranbir Penal Code

(for short R.P.C) and were directed to undergo sentence for a period of six years and a fine of Rs. 5000/-; two years and fine of Rs. 2500/-

respectively. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The appellant No. 1 is in custody right from 27th of May 2003 whereas appellant No. 2 was admitted to bail, thereafter was taken in to custody

again in terms of the impugned judgment and orders and again admitted to bail vide order dated 12th of May 2006 passed by this Court. Learned

Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellant No. 1 has undergone punishment for a period of four years, six months and some days,

without calculating the period of remission, which he is entitled to as per the Jail Manual. Appellant No. 2 has undergone punishment for a period

of more than four months and is as on today more than eighty years of age, bed ridden and virtually on death bed. Learned Counsel for the

appellants prayed that the order of conviction be maintained but the appellants be sentenced to a period already undergone by them.

Mr. Chandan, learned Deputy Advocate General, was asked to cause appearance of the parents of the deceased Sapna, who appeared and

are in old age. They stated they have lost their daughter and have not questioned the order of said sentence passed by the trial Court. Mr.

Chandan stated at bar that the order of sentence has not been questioned by State also. Thus order of sentence so far it relates to the aggrieved

party-complainant and State has attained finality.

Keeping in view the statement made at bar by the learned Counsel for appellants, question is whether the sentence can be reduced. I have gone

through the impugned orders and am of the considered view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt

and the appellants rightly came to be convicted. But in the given circumstances, I deem it proper to reduce the sentence from six years to the

period already undergone while keeping in view the fact that as per the Jail Manual appellant No. 1 has already undergone a maximum period of

sentence, only a few months have left and the age of the appellant No. 2, her health conditions and the fact that she is on death bed. My this view

is fortified by the Apex Court judgment in case titled R.P. Tyagi v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) decided on 12th of November 2009 and Jai Raj v.

State of Tamil Nadu decided on 23rd of January 2009. Ordered accordingly, but the fine is increased to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- in toto (Rs.

40,000/- each to be paid by the appellants). In case the fine amount is not paid by the appellants, the appeal shall be deemed to have been

dismissed in toto and in that event appellant No. 2 to surrender. In case the fine is paid, same shall be paid to the parents of the deceased as

compensation and appellant No. 1 shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Appeal, accordingly, disposed of.