Indrawati vs State & Ors

Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J

ORDER ON SENTENCE

Vide judgment dated 05.05.2008 we have held the Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 for guilty of offence punishable under Sections 302/364-A/365 of the

IPC.

We have heard learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 (Satinder), respondent No. 3 (Vikas) and respondent No. 4 (Vinod) and Mr.H.K.

Chaturvedi, Advocate Amicus Curiae for respondent No. 4 as well as learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for State on the point of

sentence.

Learned counsel for convict - respondent No. 2 (Satinder) has submitted that respondent No. 2 (Satinder) has already undergone a period of 4

years 2 months and 3 days in Jail. He further submitted that after the release of respondent No.2 (Satinder) and pursuant to the Judgment dated

05.05.2008, he got married on 22.10.2008. The family of the convict-respondent No.2 (Satinder) consists of his wife and three daughters. He

submitted that the wife of the respondent suffers from physical disability. He further submitted that he has three young daughters and the eldest

daughter is studying in the fourth grade. He submitted that respondent No. 2 (Satinder) is the sole breadwinner in the family and is working in a

factory.

Learned Counsel for convict-respondent No. 3 (Vikas) has submitted that the respondent No. 3 (Vikas) has already undergone a period of 4 years

2 months and 3 days in Jail. It was further submitted that while respondent No. 3 (Vikas) was in custody, he lost his mother, and his father expired in

2015. The family of the convict-respondent No.3 (Vikas) consists of his wife and two sons aged 6 and a half years and 5 and a half years. Learned

Counsel for respondent No. 3 (Vikas) further submitted that he had clean antecedents and he had been living a happy life and is not involved in any

illegal activities after his release. He further submitted that respondent No.3 after being released was boycotted in his own village and was working as

a clerk in an Advocate’s office in Patna. He further submitted that respondent No. 3 was the sole breadwinner in the family and there was no one

else to take care of the family.

Learned counsel for convict - respondent No. 4 (Vinod) has submitted that he has already undergone a period of 4 years 2 months and 3 days in

Jail. He further submitted that respondent No.4 (Vinod) is currently residing in Andhra Pradesh and is working as daily labourer. He further submitted

that after his release, he has not been involved in any illegal activities.

Learned counsel for the respondents prayed that a lenient view be taken in view of these circumstances.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the convicts should be awarded maximum sentences as there are several

aggravating factors in this case against the convict. He further submitted that convict- Respondent No. 4 (Vinod) took the deceased out under a false

pretext of playing with him and kidnapped him. He submitted that respondent No.4 (Vinod) with the help of convict-respondent No. 2 and convict

respondent No. 3 murdered the deceased by stabbing him with a knife in three places. He submitted that there was lack of remorse on behalf of the

convict-Respondents.

He further submitted that after committing the murder, weapon of offence and the belongings of the deceased i.e. the pant and the purse of the

deceased were thrown in different places and the convicts tried to mislead the investigating agency by causing the evidence to disappear. It was

further submitted that the murder was caused in a preplanned manner. It was further submitted that the brother of the convict-respondent No. 4

(Vinod) also threatened the mother of the deceased-victim. He has further argued that age and poverty are not mitigating factors while awarding the

sentence.

Learned APP on behalf of the State adopted the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellants.

We have carefully perused the record of the case and considered the submission while awarding the sentence, the Court has to take a decision

which balances the interest of both the sides.

Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay

a fine of Rs. 5,000 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and in default of payment of fine, the respondents are further sentenced to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The respondent No. 2, 3 and 4 are further sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay

a fine of Rs. 5,000 for the offence punishable under Section 364A, IPC and in default of payment of fine, the Respondents are further sentenced to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Respondent No. 2, 3 and 4 are further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 for the offence punishable under Section 365, IPC and in default of payment of fine, the Respondents

are further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

The respondent No. 2 (Satinder) is further sentenced to undergo one-year imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 25, Arms Act.

All sentences shall run concurrently.

The respondents are granted 6 weeks time to surrender themselves before the Superintendent Jail, Tihar Jail.

The respondents are given the benefit of Section 428 Cr.PC. Copy of the Judgment and order on sentence be given free of cost to the respondent

no. 2, 3 and 4 and also to the appellant/complainant.

Copy of the Order to be sent to Superintendent Jail, Tihar Jail.