Delhi District Court
S.C. No.4/10 Fir No. 588/09 State vs . Dinesh Kumar Etc. 1/7 on 17 December, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJEEV BANSAL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI SC No. : 4/10 FIR No. : 588/09 PS : Mehrauli U/S : 304-B/498-A/406/34 IPC STATE Vs. (1) Dinesh Kumar S/o Rajender Prasad (2) Smt. Sushila W/o Sukhbir Both residents of:
H.No. 424, Maidan Garhi Road, Chhatarpur, New Delhi.
ORDER ON SENTENCE PRESENT: Sh. S.K. Kain, Ld. Addl.PP for State Both the convicts produced from JC alongwith counsel Sh. L.K. Verma Ld. Counsel for convicts has stated that the convict Sushila is a woman who has been convicted u/s 306 IPC. She has three young children aged 5¾, 3¾ and 1½ years old to look after and she is a first time offender. She herself is aged 26 years old. S.C. No.4/10 FIR NO. 588/09 State vs. Dinesh Kumar etc. 1/7 She has no previous criminal antecedent. It has been submitted that convict has faced the trial for more than two years and was also in custody for 3-4 months. Ld. counsel for the convict has prayed for the benefit of probation for convict Sushila.
2. For convict Dinesh it has been argued that he is a young boy of 21 years of age and has to look after his aged mother and hence it has been prayed that he be sentenced to imprisonment of the peri- od already undergone by him which is more than two years now.
3. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP has argued that the convicts be given maximum punishment as they abetted the suicide of a young bride.
4. Heard both the Ld. Counsels and have perused the records.
5. The conviction is under Section 306 IPC which provides for a punishment of imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and fine.
S.C. No.4/10 FIR NO. 588/09 State vs. Dinesh Kumar etc. 2/7
6. So far as provisions of Section 360 Cr PC are concerned, it inter-alia provides that if a woman is convicted of an offence which is not punishable with death sentence or imprisonment for life, the Court may, instead of sentencing her to imprisonment, release her on probation of good conduct.
7. Convict Sushila having been convicted u/s 306 IPC, which is punishable upto 10 years sentence, is covered by the provisions of Section 360 Cr PC.
8. It is a settled proposition that if the case of convict falls within the legal parameter of probation, the court is under an obligation to release the offender on probation of good conduct. The object of this provision is to lay emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation of the offender as a useful and self reliant member of the society, without subjecting him to the deleterious effects of jail life.
S.C. No.4/10 FIR NO. 588/09 State vs. Dinesh Kumar etc. 3/7
9. This court has also satisfied itself that convict Sushila has a fixed place of residence on which the court can exercise jurisdiction.
10. I consider that at this particular juncture, the duty of the court is that instead of sentencing a female convict to custody, an opportunity should be given to her to reform herself and become a responsible member of the society. The convict Sushila is first time offender and does not have any criminal background. She also has three children, the eldest being less than 6 years old, this court thus wishes to extend the benefit of the benevolent provisions of probation to her and it is expected that she will also stand up to the expectation of the court and shall not involve herself in any other criminal activity nor shall she breach any of the condition of the probation.
11. As discussed above, I consider that having regard to the gender, character and antecedents of the convict Sushila, and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed, it is expedient that the convict Sushila be released on probation of good conduct S.C. No.4/10 FIR NO. 588/09 State vs. Dinesh Kumar etc. 4/7 for a period of two years on entering a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount. Convict Sushila is directed to keep peace and be of good behaviour during this period and in case she violates any of the condition of the bond, she may be called upon to receive the sentence automatically.
12. So far as convict Dinesh is concerned, the mitigating circumstances are - first time offender, young age of 21 years and old mother to look after.
13. In State of UP vs. Kishan AIR 2005 SC 1250 it was laid down that the object of the sentence is to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving. Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the victim but also against the society, to which both the victim and the criminal belong. Punishment, to be awarded for a crime, must not be irrelevant but it should be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which crime was committed. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would have the effect of undermining the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is thus the duty of court to award proper sentence having S.C. No.4/10 FIR NO. 588/09 State vs. Dinesh Kumar etc. 5/7 regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed.
14. A bride in Indian culture is expected to live in her matrimonial home throughout her life. Her parents weave such happy and wonderful dreams for the blissful life of their daughter. Parents of the girl marry their daughter in this expectation but suddenly if they get news of untimely death of the same daughter at her in-laws house, life's worst doom befalls them which cannot be anticipated and accepted by any parent. If the in-laws of such a bride are in any manner found to be instrumental in her death by the judicial process, which amount to an offence, then such offenders do not deserve any undue mercy in sentencing and demands a befitting punishment. Nevertheless, such sentencing is to be within the parameters of law.
15. Section 306 IPC provides for imposition of sentence of either description upto a period of 10 years and fine. Having considered the matter deeply and taking an overall view of the matter, the convict Dinesh is sentenced to undergo a sentence of 5 years of S.C. No.4/10 FIR NO. 588/09 State vs. Dinesh Kumar etc. 6/7 RI and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for having committed the offence u/s 306 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall also be liable to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The convict Dinesh shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C to set off the period of detention already undergone by him.
Announced in the open court. ( Rajeev Bansal )
Dated:17.12.2011 ASJ-3/South District
Saket Courts, New Delhi
S.C. No.4/10 FIR NO. 588/09 State vs. Dinesh Kumar etc. 7/7