Delhi District Court
St. vs . Pawan Kumar & Anr. on 22 October, 2007
-:1:-
S.C. NO. 32/06
St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI B. R. KEDIA ; A.S.J.
TIS HAZARI COURTS ; DELHI
State Vs. 1) Pawan Kumar
S/O Late Karan Singh,
R/O Village Garhi Mehendi
Pur, P.S. Sadar, Sonepat,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
Present Address:- Gali No.9B,
Swatantra Nagar, Narela,
Delhi.
2) Kela Devi,
W/O Late Karan Singh,
R/O Village Garhi Mehendi
Pur, P.S. Sadar, Sonepat,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
S.C. NO. 32/06
FIR NO. 2/06
P.S. R.M.D.
U/Sec. 498-A/306 IPC
Date of institution 6.5.2006.
Arguments concluded on 15.10.07.
Judgment delivered on 18.10.07.
J U D G M E N T :-
-:2:-S.C. NO. 32/06
St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
Two accused persons, namely, Pawan Kumar S/O Late Karan Singh and Kela Devi W/O Late Karan Singh have been chargesheeted for facing trial in a case bearing FIR NO. 2/06, for offence punishable 498-A/306 IPC as registered at P.S. R.M.D. Delhi.
2. The precise case of the prosecution as found reflected from the charge sheet is that on dt. 29.12.05 complainant Badam Devi W/O Late Sh. Jage Ram, who happens to be the mother of the deceased Vinod Devi @ Sundari, gave her statement to S.I. Ram Kumar, which is EX. PW-3/A. As per said statement of Smt. Badam Devi, she is having 3 sons and 3 daughters and she got married her third daughter, namely, Vinod Devi @ Sundari on 16.6.1998 with Pawan Kumar S/O Late Karan Singh and have given sufficient dowry in her marriage but after some time her son-in-law Pawan Kumar and his mother Kela Devi started harassing and giving beating to her daughter and her daughter -:3:- S.C. NO. 32/06 St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
informed her when she met her afterwords. She informed about the same to her husband, who arranged Rs. 50,000/- from the relative and gave the same to Pawan Kumar. Thereafter, again at the demand of Pawan Kumar Rs. 50,000/- was paid for second time, to ensure that her daughter will remain happy. About 2 ½ years back, her husband, who had been working in C.P.W.D. had expired, Pawan insisted her daughter to get her share from the claim received on the death of her father and started harassing her. Thereafter, she had given Rs. 1 lac to her son Rajesh and send the same alongwith her daughter to accused Pawan Kumar with the understanding not to harass her daughter. About 10 days back, on receiving telephone call from her daughter to the effect that Pawan used to give beating to her and throw her out of the house in the winter night on which she went and tried to make understand said Pawan Kumar. She further added that her daughter Vinod Devi -:4:- S.C. NO. 32/06 St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
@ Sundari alongwith her children Arju and Aryan had committed suicide on the railway track, near Narela Railway Station on 28.12.05 and hence legal action be taken against them. In pursuance of said statement of the complainant Badam Devi and considering the attending circumstance, F.I.R. bearing No. 2/06, U/S 498-A/306 IPC was got registered at P.S. R.M.D. and further investigation was taken up by S.I. Ram Kumar. During the course of investigation accused Pawan Kumar was arrested, post mortem was got conducted on the dead body of the deceased Vinod Devi @ Sundari and her 2 children, statement of the relevant witnesses were recorded and chargesheet was filed only against accused Pawan Kumar by putting accused Kela Devi in column no. 2 on the count that no direct evidence was available against her and she was residing separately. However, on the perusal of the record Ld. M.M. was pleased to summon accused Kela Devi in this case and thereafter -:5:- S.C. NO. 32/06 St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
supplementary chargesheet concerning accused Kela Devi was also filed in the court of concerned Ld. M.M., who after compliance of requirements U/S 207 Cr. P.C. was pleased to commit the case to the court of Sessions and matter was assigned to this court for trial.
3. On hearing both the sides on the point of charge vide order dt. 19/5/06, charge for the offence punishable U/S 498-A/306/34 IPC was framed against both the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution in support of its case got examined 11 prosecution witnesses, namely,HC Ashok Kumar, Duty Officer, a formal witness as PW-1, Rajesh Kumar, who is the brother of the deceased Vinod Devi @ Sundari, material witness as PW-2, Smt. Badam Devi, complainant and -:6:- S.C. NO. 32/06 St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
mother of the deceased as PW-3, Ct. Ranga Swami, who is a witness to the arrest of accused Pawan Kumar, a formal witness as PW-4, HC Kamla, Duty Officer, who has recorded D.D. NO. 10 and proved the copy of the same as EX. PW-5/A, a formal witness as PW-5, HC Om Prakash, who is also a Duty Officer and have recorded D.D. NO.6 and proved copy of the same as EX. PW-6/A and D.D. NO. 7 as EX. PW-6/B, a formal witness as PW-6, Dr. Subodh Kumar, S.R. from S.R.H.C. Hospital, who has proved the MLC of child victim as EX. PW-7/A, a formal witness as PW-7, Dr. Rajesh Gupta,C.M.O. from Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, who conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased Vinod Devi and proved the same as EX. PW-8/A, a formal witness as PW-8, Dr. B.K. Sharma, who conducted post mortem on the dead body of male child Aryan and female child Arju and proved their Post Mortem Report as EX. PW-9/A & EX. PW-9/B, respectively, a formal witness as PW-9, Smt. Kanta -:7:- S.C. NO. 32/06 St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
Yadav, Medical Record Clerk from Sushruta Trauma Center, Civil Lines, Delhi, who has proved the death summary and death certificate of the male child as EX. PW-10/A and EX. PW-10/B, respectively, a formal witness as PW-10 and S.I. Ram Kumar, who happens to be the I.O. of this case as PW-11.
5. After examination of aforesaid 11 prosecution witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed. Thereafter, statement of accused, U/S 313 Cr. P.C. were recorded, in which the accused persons denied the allegation of the prosecution and claimed to be innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. However, accused have not led any evidence in their defence.
6. I have heard Sh. Yashpal Singh, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for both the accused, Sh. Zenul-Abedeen, Ld. A.P.P. for the State and perused the relevant record. -:8:- S.C. NO. 32/06
St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
7. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused that accused Pawan Kumar is the husband and accused Kela Devi is mother-in-law of deceased Vinod Devi @ Sundari, who was married to accused Pawan Kumar on 16.6.1998 and she was living happily. It is further added that there was no sort of any dowry harassment or cruelty by these accused as against the deceased and they had never demanded for dowry. It is further added that the deceased Vinod Devi @ Sundari alongwith her 2 children had died on 28.12.2005 due to accident on the railway track and same is found supported from the statement of PW-11 S.I. Ram Kumar/I.O. and thus accused persons have got no concern for the same and hence no case U/S 306/34 IPC made out against these accused persons. It is further added by Ld. Defence Counsel that accused persons have never abetted for commission of suicide by the deceased Vinod Devi @ -:9:- S.C. NO. 32/06 St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
Sundari and hence no case U/S 306/34 IPC made out against them. Ld. Defence Counsel referred and relied upon the judgment reported as 2007 (2) JCC 1227. It is further added by Ld. Defence Counsel that even otherwise accused Kela Devi has been residing alongwith her other family members at village Mehendi Pur, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana and accused Pawan Kumar alongwith his wife Vinod Devi @ Sundari (since deceased) had been residing separately at Narela, Delhi and hence accused Kela Devi has got no concern with the matrimonial affairs of the deceased. It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel that there are various contradictions in the deposition of PW-2 Rajesh Kumar and PW-3 Smt. Badam Devi, who are brother and mother of the deceased on the point of time of payment of Rs. 50,000/- two times and Rs. 1 lac one time and source of said payment and same falsify the stand of the prosecution regarding dowry harassment and hence no case U/S 498-A IPC made out -:10:- S.C. NO. 32/06 St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
against the accused persons and hence accused persons deserve to be acquitted. It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel that PW-2 Rajesh and PW-3 Smt. Badam Devi have duly joined inquest proceeding with the I.O. and have not made any complaint by that time as against the accused persons but later on Smt. Badam Devi fabricated the complaint against the accused on the basis of which the present case has been registered and hence accused persons deserve to be acquitted.
8. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. APP for the State that the prosecution by examining aforesaid 11 prosecution witnesses have successfully established its case for the charged offence as against both the accused and they deserve to be convicted accordingly. It is further added by Ld. APP that the case of the prosecution is found corroborated from the deposition of PW-2 Rajesh and PW-3 Smt. Badam Devi, who are -:11:- S.C. NO. 32/06 St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
brother and mother of the deceased and there is no reason to disbelieve them and hence both the accused persons deserve to be convicted accordingly. It is also added by Ld. APP that minor discrepancies in the deposition of some PWs cannot discard the material part of their deposition and it can be of no help for the stand of the accused. It is, thus, urged by Ld. APP for conviction of both the accused for the charged offence.
9. From the perusal of the case record, it is clearly reflected that both these accused have been charged for offence punishable U/S 498-A/34 IPC for causing cruelty/harassment for dowry demand upon the deceased Smt. Vinod Devi @ Sundari and also for offence punishable U/S 306/34 IPC for abetting for commission of suicide by the deceased Vinod Devi @ Sundari on dt. 28.12.2005 at about 9:10 a.m. by jumping on the railway track alongwith her minor children, namely, -:12:- S.C. NO. 32/06 St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
Baby Arju and Master Aryan near Bankner Railway Crossing, Narela, Delhi.
10. First of all, let us see if, the accused persons can be held liable for offence punishable U/S 306/34 IPC for abetting for commission of suicide by the deceased Vinod Devi @ Sundari? In the case reported as AIR 1975 S.C. 175 in Para-6 it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under :-
"Thus, in order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have "intentionally" aided the commission of the crime. Mere proof that the crime charged could not have been committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance with the requirements of Section
107. ......
It is not enough that an -:13:- S.C. NO. 32/06 St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
act on the part of the alleged abettor happens to facilitate the commission of the crime.
Intentional aiding and therefore active complicity is the gist of the offence of abetment under the third paragraph of Section 107."
In the case reported as 2000(2) JCC Delhi 297, "Lakshmi & Anr. Vs. State" while dealing with the case U/S 306 IPC it was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court as under :-
7. "In Emperor Vs. Amiruddin Solebhoy AIR 923 Bombay 44, the meaning of the word "instigate" has been explained as under :-
"A person is said to instigate another to act when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means or language, direct or -:14:- S.C. NO. 32/06 St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
indirect, Whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragements."
8. In Rishi Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 1988 (1) All India Criminal Law Reports 615, a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court has also explained the meaning of the word "instigate" as under :-
"The word "instigate"
literally means to goad, urge forward, to provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. A person is said to instigate another when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement."
9. Thus, in the context of the offence the word "instigate" would mean to suggest, provoke, incite or -:15:- S.C. NO. 32/06 St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
encourage or stimulate to do an act or to urge forward.
10. "Conspiracy" consists in a combination and agreement by persons to do some illegal act or to effect a legal purpose by means. In order to constitute the offence of abetment by conspiracy, there mus be a combining together of two or more persons in the conspiracy and an act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing.
11. And a person abets by aiding when by any act done, either prior to, or at the time of, commission of an act, he intends to facilitate and does in fact facilitate the commission thereof.
12. In order to constitute abetment by aiding, the abettor -:16:- S.C. NO. 32/06 St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
must be shown to have "intentionally" aided the commission of the crime (Sri Ram Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1975 SC 175)
14. Abetment involves active complicity on the part of the abettor at a point of time prior to the actual commission of the offence and it is of the essence of the crime of abetment that the abettor should substantially assist towards the commission of the offence. In other words, in order to convict a person of abetting the commission of a crime, it is necessary to connect him with those steps in the transaction which are criminal. It is not the case of the prosecution that when the deceased had committed suicide, the accused were present at the place of incident. There is no material, direct or indirect, to show that the accused had either -:17:- S.C. NO. 32/06 St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
instigated or conspired or aided the deceased in committing the suicide at that time. And it could not be said that the accused persons had abetted the suicide. On the material available no offence punishable under section 306/34 IPC is made out against either of the accused.
In 2002 (2) JCC 466 (Delhi), "Ms. Taposhi Chakervarti Vs. State" while dealing with case relating to Sec. 306/498A IPC, it was observed by our Hon'ble Delhi High Court in para - 6 as under :-
"The law on the subject, to my mind, is that the abettor must be shown to have intentionally aided the commissioning of the crime and mere proof that the crime charged could not have been committed without the -:18:- S.C. NO. 32/06 St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance with the requirements of Section 107. A person may, for example, invite another casually or for friendly purpose and that may facilitate the murder of the invitee, unless the invitation was extended with intent to facilitate the commission of the murder, the person inviting cannot be said to have abetted the murder. It is not enough that an act on the part of the alleged abettor happens to facilitate the commission of the crime, intentionally aiding and, therefore, active complicity is the gist of offence of abetment under the third paragraph of Section 107, IPC, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Shri Ram & Anr. Vs State of U.P. AIR 1975 SC 175. It is, however, difficult to lay down the exact acts of commission or omission which amount to abetment depending upon facts of -:19:- S.C. NO. 32/06 St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
the each case but the principles have already been laid down in precedents."
In a recent case reported as 2007 IV (AD) Delhi, 498, Prashant Manchanda Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Anr." while dealing with case relating to Sec. 306 IPC, it was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in para 11 as under :-
"In order to attract Section 306 IPC, the person to abet commission of suicide mus do an over act or some act which instigates the victim to commit suicide. The act so performed must be immediate cause of the suicide. Here, in this case, Commissioner of Police had suspended the deceased Inspector on 1th October, 2004. The deceased Inspector committed suicide exactly after two years. The -:20:- S.C. NO. 32/06 St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
suspension was done by the
Commissioner of Police as an
official act which he was authorized to do under law. Every head of the department is supposed to initiate disciplinary action against subordinates when commission or omission of such acts are brought to his notice which prima facie show dereliction of duty or malafide actions."
11. However, in the present case from the case file, it is reflected that PW-3 Smt. Badam Devi, mother of the deceased has clearly deposed in the court that about 10 days prior to the incident her daughter Vinod Devi @ Sundari had called her by telephone and informed that accused Pawan and Kela Devi were continuously harassing her by way of beating and keeping her outside the house for the whole night. She further added that she came to know that her daughter Vinod Devi @ -:21:- S.C. NO. 32/06 St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
Sundari had committed suicide alongwith her 2 children, namely, Arju and Aryan due to harassment caused by accused persons by way of throwing herself alongwith her children on the railway track. Said PW-3 Smt. Badam Devi has not disclosed as to from whom she came to know about the said fact. Further more, the claim of PW-3 Smt. Badam Devi, to have talked to the deceased 10 days prior to the incident is contradicted from the deposition of said PW-3 Smt. Badam Devi as at another stage said PW-3 Smt. Badam Devi has deposed in the court as under :-
"Prior to 1 month from her death, my daughter Vinod Devi @ Sindoori had come to me and informed me about the harassment/torture by accused Pawan. I had not met my daughter Vinod Devi @ Sindoori nor talked to her thereafter till her death."-:22:- S.C. NO. 32/06
St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
12. Further more, said PW-3 Smt. Badam Devi has admitted it to be correct that her daughter Vinod Devi @ Sundari alongwith accused Pawan and their children were residing at Narela and accused Kela Devi used to reside at village Mehendi Pur, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
13. Similarly, PW-2 Rajesh Kumar, who is the brother of the deceased has merely deposed in the court that due to harassment by accused his sister Vinod Devi @ Sundari alongwith her 2 children, namely, Arju and Aryan had committed suicide by way of throwing herself alongwith her children on railway track on 28.12.05. Said PW-2 Rajesh Kumar also deposed in the court that accused Kela Devi was residing at her native village Mehendi Pur, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana and his sister Vinod Devi @ Sundari alongwith accused Pawan had been residing at Narela. Said PW-2 Rajesh Kumar also -:23:- S.C. NO. 32/06 St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
deposed in the court that he had visited the house of his sister at Narela about 1 month prior to her suicide. 14 From the deposition of PW-2 Rajesh Kumar and PW-3 Smt. Badam Devi, it is clearly reflected that none of them have deposed about any specific incident of quarrel by the accused with the deceased which instigated or insisted deceased Vinod Devi @ Sundari to commit suicide on 28.12.05. Further more, no evidence could be brought on record by the prosecution to establish the fact that these accused abetted/instigated the deceased Vinod Devi @ Sundari to commit suicide. Even, the prosecution could not establish about the factum of commission of suicide by the deceased Vinod Devi @ Sundari by throwing herself alongwith her 2 minor children on the railway track on 28.12.05 as PW- 11 S.I. Ram Kumar/I.O has gone to the extent of deposing in the court as under :-
-:24:-S.C. NO. 32/06
St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
"It is correct that it came into my notice during the course of investigation that deceased persons were residing alongwith accused Pawan at Swatantra Nagar, Narela, Delhi and co-accused Smt. Kela was residing in village Mehendi Pur, District Sonepat, Haryana alongwith her other family members. It is correct that there residential area on both the sides of up railway line pole no. 26/1, Narela, Delhi. It is also correct that many persons used to across aforesaid railway track unauthorisedly. It is correct that I was told by the railway officials that it is a case of train run over (Train accident).
15. By taking the cue from the aforesaid judgments and applying the same to the facts and circumstances to the present case, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that the prosecution could not be successful in -:25:- S.C. NO. 32/06 St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
establishing its case for offence punishable U/S 306/34 IPC as against these accused for abetting the commission of suicide by deceased Vinod Devi @ Sundari alongwith her children.
16. Now, let us see "Whether these accused persons can be held liable for offence punishable U/S 498-A/34 IPC for which they have been charged with?" So far as this aspect is concerned, PW-2 Rajesh Kumar, brother of the deceased have deposed in the court that his sister Vinod Devi @ Sundari (since deceased) was married to accused Pawan Kumar in the year 1998 and adequate dowry was given as per their capacity. However, after some times of her marriage, accused Pawan Kumar and Kela Devi started harassing his sister for dowry. He further deposed that accused Pawan had demanded Rs. 1 lac from them and the same was given to him by his mother in his presence in the year 2004. He further -:26:- S.C. NO. 32/06 St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
deposed that about 1 ½ years of marriage of his sister his father (since expired) had given Rs. 50,000/- each two times to accused Pawan Kumar. He further deposed that despite payment of Rs. 2 lacs, the accused had been harassing his sister Vinod Devi @ Sundari (since deceased) for more and more dowry.
Similarly, PW-3 Smt. Badam Devi, who is the mother of the deceased deposed in the court that she had got married her daughter Vinod Devi @ Sundari with accused Pawan Kumar and have given sufficient dowry to accused Pawan. She further added that after some times of said marriage both the accused started harassing her daughter and demanding more dowry and she was informed by her daughter when she met her. She also deposed that she informed about the said fact to her husband, who arranged Rs. 50,000/- and said amount was given to accused Pawan by him. She -:27:- S.C. NO. 32/06 St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
further added that accused Pawan again demanded Rs. 50,000/- and her husband arranged the said amount and paid to accused Pawan at his house in her presence. She further added that her husband, who was working in C.P.W.D. expired about 1 ½ years back and after the death of her husband accused Pawan started harassing her daughter to demand share from the amount received due to death of her husband. Thereafter, she gave Rs. 1 lac to her son Rajesh and said amount was given by him to the accused Pawan Kumar. She further deposed that despite giving of Rs.2 lacs, the accused persons kept on harassing her daughter for more dowry.
17. From the perusal of the deposition of PW-2 Rajesh Kumar, brother of the deceased and PW-3 Smt. Badam Devi, mother of the deceased, it is reflected that there is specific allegation regarding exercise of cruelty/harassment on account of unlawful demand for -:28:- S.C. NO. 32/06 St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
money by the accused Pawan Kumar as against his wife Vinod Devi @ Sundari (since deceased) periodically but there is no specific and clinching allegation as against co-accused Kela Devi. Further more, it is established from the record that the accused Kela Devi has been residing separately in the village Mehendi Pur, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana, whereas accused Pawan Kumar alongwith deceased Vinod Devi @ Sundari with her children have been residing at Narela, Delhi. No doubt, some sort of discrepancies have been brought on record in the cross-examination of PW-2 Rajesh Kumar and PW-3 Smt. Badam Devi, but the same are found to be formal and casual in nature without striking at the root of the matter and can be of no help for the accused Pawan Kumar.
18. In the light of the aforesaid material as found available on the case record concerning offence -:29:- S.C. NO. 32/06 St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
punishable U/S 498-A IPC, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that the prosecution could not be successful in establishing its case for offence punishable U/S 498-A IPC as against accused Kela Devi and hence she is acquitted of the said charged offence. However, accused Pawan Kumar is found guilty for offence punishable U/S 498-A IPC and he is convicted accordingly.
19. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that both these accused, namely, Kela Devi and Pawan Kumar are acquitted for the charged offence punishable U/S 306/34 IPC. Accused Kela Devi is also acquitted of the charged offence punishable U/S 498-A/34 IPC. However, accused Pawan Kumar is found guilty for offence punishable U/S 498-A IPC and convicted accordingly. As accused Kela Devi has been acquitted of both the charged offence, her bail bond and surety bond stand discharged. However, as accused Pawan Kumar -:30:- S.C. NO. 32/06 St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
has been convicted for offence punishable U/S 498-A IPC, he be heard separately on the point of sentence. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (B.R. KEDIA) On 18th October, 2007. Addl. Sessions Judge Tis Hazari Courts Delhi.-:31:-
S.C. NO. 32/06 St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI B. R. KEDIA ; A.S.J. TIS HAZARI COURTS ; DELHI S.C. NO. 32/06 FIR NO. 2/06 P.S. R.M.D. U/Sec. 498-A IPC (Convicted) State Vs. 1) Pawan Kumar S/O Late Karan Singh, R/O Village Garhi Mehendi Pur, P.S. Sadar, Sonepat, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
Present Address:- Gali No.9B, Swatantra Nagar, Narela, Delhi.
ORDER ON SENTENCE :-
In pursuance of judgment dt. 18/10/07 as passed by this court, whereby, convicting the accused Pawan Kumar for offence punishable U/S 498-A IPC, I have heard Sh. Yashpal Singh, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for convict Pawan Kumar and Sh. Zenul-Abeddin, Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State and perused the case record for passing this order on sentence.-:32:-
S.C. NO. 32/06
St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
2. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the convict that this convict Pawan Kumar is a poor man and has been working as peon in Canera Bank, Tri Nagar, Delhi. It is further added that after the incident, the convict has been residing at his native village Mehendipur, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana and having the responsibility to feed his widow mother besides 2 unmarried sisters and one younger brother. It is also added that this convict has already remained in custody from 14.1.2006 to 7.7.2006. It is further added that if this convict is sent to jail, his other family members will suffer emense hardship as this convict is the only bread earner for them and he is the first offender and hence urge for taking lenient consideration, thereby, granting benefit of Probation. However, it is submitted by Ld. APP that appropriate order may be passed by this court.-:33:-
S.C. NO. 32/06
St. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Anr.
3. Considering the aforesaid submission from both sides and specifically keeping in mind the custody period of this convict, I consider it expedient in the interest of justice to grant Probation as per Sec. 4 & benefit U/S 12 Probation of Offenders Act,1958 on his furnishing probation bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount and to appear and receive the sentence as and when called upon during Probation period of 1 year and in the mean time to keep peace and be of good behaviour. It is further directed that the benefit of Sec. 12 of Probation of Offenders Act,1958 is also granted to the convict so that the convict will not suffer any disqualification of his service career.
4. Let, a copy of the judgment dt. 18/10/07 and copy of this order on sentence be given free of cost to the convict Pawan Kumar, immediately.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (B.R. KEDIA) On 22nd October, 2007. Addl. Sessions Judge Tis Hazari Courts Delhi.