Naresh @ Pappu vs State Nct Of Delhi

S.P. Garg, J

By a judgment dated 08.08.2011 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.197/2008 arising out of FIR No.57/07, Police Station

Kanjhawala, the appellant Naresh @ Pappu was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 308 IPC for inflicting injuries to his wife

PW-1 (Sushila). By an order dated 10.08.2011 the appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years with fine Rs. 5,000/-.

Aggrieved by the said findings, the present appeal has been filed.

During the course of arguments, the appellant opted to give up challenge to the findings recorded by the Trial Court on conviction. He urged that

lenient view be taken as the matter has been settled/compounded with the injured/complainant.

I have examined the file. Several injuries were inflicted by the appellant on the person of PW-1 (Sushila), his wife on 29.03.2007 by a sharp

weapon. The prosecution was, however, unable to establish as to what was the appellant’s motive to cause injuries to his wife. It has come on

record that both the appellant and the victim were living together at the matrimonial home and were blessed with two sons who have since been

married. The children live with the appellant in the village. Presently, the victim is living with her father. When the matter was listed for disposal, the

complainant appeared in person and urged to take lenient view as the matter stood settled with the appellant. The court was not satisfied with the

settlement arrived at with the appellant. With the assistance of the counsel for the complainant as well as the appellant, various attempts were made to

reunite the parties. Even the victim’s sons were called to participate. They too supported their father; the parties could not be reunited.

Again, the complainant along with her counsel prayed to release the appellant for the period already undergone; she was not interested for his

further incarceration. The appellant was asked to pay a reasonable amount of compensation to the victim as she would have to maintain herself while

staying with her father. Again, settlement talks continued between the parties. By an order dated 29.07.2016, the appellant agreed to pay Rs.

1,00,000/- to the complainant by way of demand draft in her name within a week through Investigating Officer without prejudice and subject to future

adjustment (if any) to show bona-fide. It was informed that the parties were exploring the possibility of final settlement of all the disputes including

divorce; the said sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid to the complainant.

Subsequently, the matter was settled and both the parties filed petition to seek divorce by mutual consent. The divorce has since been granted by

the court. The complainant informed this Court that in the divorce proceedings, she has received an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- in all and at present she

is living with her father. She again urged the court not to award any further sentence to the appellant.

Apparently, the matter has been settled with the appellant by the victim/wife. The parties could not be reunited due to certain difficulties informed

by the appellant’s counsel during arguments which need not to be recorded in the order. This, however, finds mention in the statement of

victim’s son who appeared as DW-1 (Ajay Shokeen).

In Ishwar Singh vs.State of Madhya Pradesh 2009 (1) JCC 59,3 the Supreme Court observed that in case settlement takes place in offence which

was not compoundable, say 307 IPC, the court may take into account a relevant important consideration about the compromise between the parties

for the purpose of reduction of sentence.

In the instant case, the appellant has suffered detention for certain duration. He has suffered the ordeal of trial and appeal for about ten years; he is

54 years old now. The matter has been settled/compounded with the complainant amicably. Divorce between the parties has taken place; an amount

of Rs. 4,00,000/- has been paid to the complainant in full and final satisfaction of the claims. The complainant has no objection for reduction of the

sentence.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case while affirming the conviction under Section 308 IPC, Sentence Order is modified and

the appellant is sentenced to undergo the period already spent by him in this case. Of course, he shall pay the unpaid fine (if any) before the Trial

Court within fifteen days.

The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial Court record along with the copy of this order be sent back forthwith.