Rajinder Kumar and Others vs State of Punjab

T.P.S. Mann, J.—The appellants were tried for an offence u/s 498A IPC. Sudarshan Kumar appellant was also charged u/s 302 IPC whereas the remaining appellants u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 10.6.1996, learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana exonerated the appellants of the charge u/s 302 IPC and, instead, convicted them u/s 306 IPC as well as u/s 498A IPC. All of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 on the first count and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500 on the second. Sentences of imprisonment were also imposed upon the appellants in the event of non-payment of fine. The substantive sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.

At the outset, it has been submitted by Learned Counsel for the appellants that Sudarshan Kumar appellant has died on 27.6.1999. In this regard, he has drawn the attention of the Court to photocopy of the death certificate issued by Additional Local Registrar, Births and Deaths, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, as per which the factum of death of Sudarshan Kumar was registered on 30.7.1999 vide registration No.406.

Photocopy of the death certificate had been handed over to learned State counsel on the last date of hearing so as to verify the factum of death of Sudarshan Kumar appellant. Pursuant to the same, learned State counsel has placed on record the statements of Sudesh Kumar and Joginder Singh duly attested by Head Constable Jasdev Singh, Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana. It has been stated by aforementioned Sudesh Kumar and Joginder Singh, who had been residing in the neighbourhood of Sudershan Kumar, that the latter had died on 27.6.1999.

Learned Counsel for the appellants states that while granting the concession of bail in the present appeal, this Court on 5.8.1996, had made it conditional on the payment of fine by the appellants. Therefore, the present appeal qua Sudarshan Kumar appellant survives in respect of his sentence of imprisonment and as he had died, the appeal on his behalf abates.

Learned Counsel for the appellants has not challenged the conviction of Rajinder Kumar and Santosh Rani appellants in view of the overwhelming evidence available on the file, which proves their complicity for the offences u/s 306 and 498A IPC. However, he has submitted that Rajinder Kumar and Santosh Rani appellants have been facing the agony of criminal prosecution since the year 1994. Both them have already undergone a substantial portion of their sentences of imprisonment. It has also been stated that during the pendency of the present appeal, Rajinder Kumar appellant has remarried and have two children, who are less than ten years of age. In case Rajinder Kumar appellant is sent behind the bars, once again, to undergo his remaining sentence, there would be none left to fend for the wife and the minor children of appellant Rajinder Kumar. It has also been submitted that Santosh Rani appellant was about 55 years of age at the time of trial and, at present she is about 70 years old. She is suffering from various old age ailments. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the substantive sentence of the surviving appellants be reduced to that already undergone by them.

Learned State counsel has submitted that on account of continuous harassment and taunting by the appellants, deceased Manju was left with no other option but to end her life. The said incident took place within 5 years of the marriage. Therefore, none of the surviving appellants deserves any concession in the matter of sentence. However, he has placed on record the custody certificates issued by the jail authorities.

As per custody certificate issued by Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana, Rajinder Kumar appellant remained in jail as an undertrial for one year nine months and fifteen days and thereafter spent a period of two months and nine days in the jail as a convict. In all, he has already undergone one year eleven months and twenty four days in jail of the sentence of five years imposed upon him. Similarly, as per custody certificate Santosh Rani appellant remained in jail as an undertrial for nine months and eight days and upon passing of the impugned judgment and order by the trial Court, she was taken in as a convict and stayed in jail for two months and nine days before she was released on bail. In all, she has undergone eleven months and seventeen days in jail.

Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, a case is made out for reduction of substantive sentences of imprisonment of Rajinder Kumar and Santosh Rani appellants to that already undergone by them.

Resultantly the appeal of Sudershan Kumar appellant is disposed of as having abated. The substantive sentences of imprisonment of Rajinder Kumar and Santosh Rani appellants are reduced to that already undergone by them.

The appeal is accordingly, disposed of.