Yad Ram vs State of Haryana

Sabina, J.—Accused-Yad Ram Appellant was convicted for an offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ''IPC'') vide judgment dated 12.1.2002 passed by the Sessions Judge, Narnaul. Vide order of even date, the Appellants were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 u/s 498-A, IPC and was further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 u/s 306, IPC. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Hence, the present appeal by the accused-appellant.

Prosecution case, as noticed by the Trial Court in para No. 2 of its judgment, is reproduced hereinbelow:

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Sunita, now deceased, was married with accused Yad Ram on 8.6.1998. Accused Yad Ram and his parents are residents of village Chindaliya, Police Station Sadar Narnaul, whereas the parents of Sunita were residents of village Wazirpur, Police Station Beri. Sunita studied upto 10+2 class and she also passed diploma in Hindi Stenography Course from ITI, Rohtak, whereas, accused Yad Ram studied upto MA Classes. At the time of marriage, accused Yad Ram was working into a Mill at Bhiwani. Om Parkash father of Sunita spent handsome amount on the marriage of Sunita and gave sufficient dowry articles. After six months of the marriage of Sunita, Yad Ram accused demanded some amount from Om Parkash complainant for purchasing a plot in Bhiwani. For this purpose Sunita and her husband Yad Ram came to complainant Om Parkash and they demanded Rs. 20,000, but the complainant did not possess this amount, so, he borrowed the amount of Rs. 20,000 from his brother Manohar Lal and handed over this amount to accused Yad Ram. However, instead of purchasing plot in Bhiwani, accused Yad Ram spent the amount for some other purpose. Similarly, accused Yad Ram left his job from Bhiwani Mills and took a job in private school in Bhiwani. On 7.9.1999, Yad Ram accused accompanied with his wife Sunita came to the house of the complainant and Yad Ram told the complainant that he was a teacher in private school and, therefore, he is to travel daily to Bhiwani from his village and in this manner, he was feeling difficulty and he wanted to purchase a scooter, but he did not possess the requisite amount to purchase the scooter and, therefore, he demanded Rs. 20,000 from the complainant for purchasing the scooter. The complainant expressed his inability to meet the demand of Yad Ram, but at the same time, he assured him that the complainant would make all efforts to arrange the amount of Rs. 20,000. Thereafter, Sunita and her husband Yad Ram left the house of the complainant, but Yad Ram left Sunita at Bus Stand of the village and he himself went to his village. Sunita came back to the house of the complainant and at that time, she was weeping. Ultimately, Yad Ram took Sunita to his house on 22.9.1999 when complainant Om Parkash assured accused Yad Ram that he would arrange for the amount. However, the complainant failed to give this amount to accused Yad Ram, so on 28.11.1999 accused Yad Ram left Sunita at the house of the complainant and he himself went away. While lea ving the house, accused Yad Ram told the complainant that in case the amount for purchase of the scooter is not given to him, he would not take Sunita along with him. After some exchange of hot words, Thana Singh the father of Yad Ram accused came to the house of the complainant on 12.11.1999 and he took away Sunita with him. Accused Yad Ram, his father Thana Ram and mother Shrimati Banarai Devi kept on pressurizing Sunita time and again to bring more and more amount and they used to insult her on petty matters. On 1.1.2000, the complainant received the information that Sunita was not available in village Chindaliya and at that time, she was pregnant. On 2.1.2000, the complainant came to know that the dead body of Sunita was recovered from the well of the village.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant-Yad Ram, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction of the Appellant under Sections 498-A and 306, IPC, but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment of the Appellant may be reduced to already undergone by him. The Appellant has undergone more than two years of actual sentence. In support of his arguments, learned Counsel has placed reliance on Jagsir Singh and Another Vs. State of Haryana, ; Jagsir Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana I (2004) DMC 538 : 2004 (1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 123; Sanjay Kumar v. State of Haryana 2004 (4) RCR 488; Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana 2003 (4) R.C.R.334; Rakesh Kumar v. State of Punjab 1999 (4) RCR 133 and Satto and Ors. v. State of Punjab 2003 (4) R.C.R. 878. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the Appellant is facing the criminal proceedings for the last ten years.

Accordingly, keeping in view the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the Appellant to already undergone by him.

Hence, the conviction of the Appellant under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC, is maintained. However, the sentence qua the imprisonment of the Appellant is reduced to already undergone by him. Fine, as imposed by the Trial Court, if not deposited by the appellant, be deposited within two months from today failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed.

Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.