Delhi District Court
State vs Arshdeep Singh on 10 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MANOJ JAIN: ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE
FAST TRACK COURT: NORTH-WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI
DELHI
Sessions Case No. 52575/15
Old Sessions Case No. 11/1/15
FIR No. 155/13
PS Shalimar Bagh
U/s 316/307 IPC
State Versus Arshdeep Singh
Son of Sh. Gurmeet Singh,
Resident of H. No. Ex-B-20,
Gali No. 1, Hari Nagar,
Delhi.
Date of institution in Sessions Court: 18.04.2015
Date of conclusion of arguments : 27.07.2016
Date of pronouncement of judgment: 01.08.2016
Memo of Appearance:
Sh. Sanjay Jindal, learned Addl. P.P. for State
Sh. S.S. Tyagi, learned counsel for complainant
Sh. Anuj Handa, learned defence counsel for accused
JUDGMENT
PROSECUTION VERSION 1.0 On night intervening 17.04.2013 and 18.04.2013 at about 1.10 AM, police received news that a Santro Car bearing no. DL4CAG-0981 had collided against one tree near Prem Bari Bridge, Singhal Pur. ASI L.N. Sharma (PW11), accompanied by Ct. Balakari, rushed to the spot. PCR vehicle had reached there already. They also noticed such Santro car in accidental condition. ASI L.N. Sharma also came to know that Balwinder Kaur (PW6), who had received injuries in the aforesaid accident, had been admitted in Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh. He accordingly reached there and collected her MLC. She had, however, been declared unfit for making any statement. It will be worthwhile to mention here that FIR No. 155/2013 PS Shalimar Bagh (State Vs. Arshdeep Singh) Page 1 of 14 Balwinder Kaur was in a family way and was carrying eight months baby and due to the impact of accident, her such unborn child died in the womb.
1.1 Accused Arshdeep Singh, her husband was also found admitted in the hospital. He was having injuries on his lips. Arshdeep Singh made a statement that when he was returning to home along with his wife in his Santro Car, one stray dog came in front of car all of a sudden and in the process of saving such dog, his car collided against a tree due to which his wife had received injuries.
1.2 No eyewitness was found either at the spot or in the hospital and, therefore, initially, case was registered under Section 279/337 IPC.
1.3 Balwinder Kaur was declared fit to make statement on 20.04.2013 only. SDM Sh. Mani Bhushan Malhotra (PW10) was requested to reach the hospital. Balwinder Kaur made statement to him and then it came to fore that her husband and her in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry and used to comment and complaint that substantial amount had not been spent on the marriage. She also revealed that on 17.04.2013, her husband had come to her parental home to take her back and quarreled with her at her parental home as well. She also divulged that while returning in Santro Car, accused threatened that he would kill her as well as their unborn child and would kill himself also. He then gave fist punches on her abdominal region and then deliberately struck car against a truck and then against a tree. She prayed that appropriate legal action be taken against her husband.
1.4 On the basis of such revelation made by Balwinder Kaur, penal sections were altered from Sections 279/337 IPC to Sections 307/316 IPC.
1.5 SI Sanjay Kumar (PW12) was entrusted with further investigation. He arrested accused Arshdeep Singh and also got Santro Car mechanically inspected. Thereafter, further investigation was carried out by Insp. Rajender Singh (PW15).
FIR No. 155/2013 PS Shalimar Bagh (State Vs. Arshdeep Singh) Page 2 of 141.6 It is in these circumstances that accused has been charge-sheeted for commission of offences under Sections 307/316 IPC.
COGNIZANCE AND CHARGES 2.0 Charge-sheet was presented before the concerned Magisterial Court on 19.03.2015 and since said offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed.
2.1 Case was received on allocation by this Court on 18.04.2015.
2.2 Arguments on charge were heard and vide order dated 06.07.2015, accused was ordered to be charged under Sections 316/307 IPC.
2.3 He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
WITNESSES FOR PROSECUTION 3.0 Prosecution was directed to adduce evidence and has examined sixteen witnesses.
3.1 These witnesses can be categorized as under:-
Public witnesses:
(i) PW4 Sh. Balbir Singh (father of complainant)
(ii) PW5 Sh. Hardeep Singh (brother of complainant).
(ii) PW6 Ms. Balwinder Singh (complainant/victim) Police witnesses:
(i) PW1 Ct. Raj Kumar (DD Writer)
(ii) PW2 SI Kamal Singh ((police official who filed the charge-sheet).
(iii) PW3 ASI Narain Singh (duty officer)
(iv) PW7 HC Satish Kumar (MHCM)
(v) PW8 HC Chiranji Lal (duty officer)
(vi) PW9 ASI Ramesh Chand (assisted in the investigation)
(vii) PW10 Sh. Mani Bhushan Malhotra (Sub Division Magistrate)
(viii) PW11 ASI L.N. Sharma (first investigating officer)
(ix) PW12 SI Sanjay Kumar (second investigating officer)
(x) PW14 Retd/ASI Devender Kumar (police official who mechanically FIR No. 155/2013 PS Shalimar Bagh (State Vs. Arshdeep Singh) Page 3 of 14 inspected the Santro Car)
(xi) PW15 Insp. Rajender Singh (third investigating officer) Doctors
(i) PW13 Dr. Ashish Jain (doctor who examined injured/complainant)
(ii) PW16 Dr. Sudesh Kumar (doctor who conducted autopsy of fetus) STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
4.0 Accused, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., pleaded innocence and claimed that he had been falsely implicated in the present case.
4.1 He did admit that at the time of accident, he was returning with his wife in a Santro car but denied having caused any deliberate accident.
4.2 Question No. 5 put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the corresponding answer are extracted as under:-
Q5 Further that on 14/04/2013, PW6 Balwinder Kaur had come to her parental home and you had come to take her back on 17/04/2013. You both started from the parental home of Balwinder Kaur at about 11.15 p.m. in a Santro car and you were driving the said vehicle at that time. Immediately, you started quarreling with PW6 Balwinder Kaur who told you that they could talk after you both had reached home. However, you started claiming that she did not use to respect your sister and Jijaji. You then gave punches in her stomach and also used vulgar language for your unborn child and claimed that you would kill him. Enroute, you also hit your car on the backside of a running truck. At a short distance from there, you then hit the car against a tree causing a very strong impact. What do you have to say?
Ans. It is all wrong. I took her back in my Santo car on 17/04/13 and we were returning while conversing with each other. All of a sudden, one dog came in front of our car from nowhere and I in order to avoid any collision with such dog, FIR No. 155/2013 PS Shalimar Bagh (State Vs. Arshdeep Singh) Page 4 of 14 turned the steering wheel towards the left. I could not balance the car and could not somehow apply the brakes as the dog had come in front all of a sudden and in the process, my car banged with a tree which resulted in damage of my car on its front middle portion. I did not give any punch on her stomach. I did not cause any accident voluntarily. I did not use any vulgar language to my wife.
RIVAL CONTENTIONS 5.0 I have heard learned prosecutor and Sh. Anuj Handa, learned defence counsel and carefully perused the entire material available on record.
5.1 Sh. S.S. Tyagi, learned counsel for complainant has also assisted the Court during the course of arguments.
5.2 According to Sh. Jindal, testimony of complainant Balwinder Kaur is fully inspiring and trustworthy and the manner in which the accident was deliberately caused clearly goes on to show the malafide intention on the part of accused. He has also claimed that there was matrimonial discord between accused and his wife and the altercation took place during the journey and accused did not even blink for a second before causing intentional accident in utter disregard to the advanced stage of pregnancy of his wife. His such atrocious act resulted in grievous injury to complainant and death of their unborn child. He has also contended that testimony of complainant also indicates that before causing accident, accused had even given fist punches on the abdominal region of complainant with intention to cause serious and dangerous injuries to her and their unborn child. He has asserted that there is no reason to hold that it was a case of freak accident.
5.3 Sh. Handa has refuted all the aforesaid contentions. According to him, it was a case of unintended accident. He has persisted that a stray dog had come in front of the car and in order to save such dog, when accused steered the car, it banged against the tree. He has also drawn my attention towards the statement made by PW4 Sh. Balbir Singh (father of complainant) in which he FIR No. 155/2013 PS Shalimar Bagh (State Vs. Arshdeep Singh) Page 5 of 14 categorically claimed and admitted that he had made inquiries from his daughter and she had received injuries due to the accident only for which no one was responsible. He has also referred to one affidavit which had been filed by complainant during the investigation stage itself in which she had categorically deposed that she had entered into compromise and she did not want to pursue her complaint against her husband and in-laws.
5.4 Additionally, Sh. Handa has contended that both the parties have already buried the matrimonial discord and have agreed to part with in a graceful manner. As per terms of settlement, both the parties have agreed to give divorce to each other by mutual consent and First Motion has already been filed and statements have been recorded. A copy of settlement has also been placed on record. Such aspect is not disputed by complainant Balwinder Kaur and her counsel Sh. Tyagi.
5.5 Sh. Tyagi has also supplemented that in view of said settlement, complainant is not interested in pursuing her present complaint anymore and wants the Court to let off the accused completely.
5.6 It will not be out of place to mention here that the Court also made direct inquiry from complainant Balwinder Kaur in this regard and she admitted that the matter had been amicably settled. She also confirmed the terms of settlement and stressed that she did not want any further penal action against her husband and requested that her husband may be exonerated.
5.7 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the entire material available on record.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE 6.0 There does not seem to be any dispute that there was matrimonial disharmony between the couple. Separate proceedings for commission of offences under Sections 498A/406 IPC have already been initiated by complainant and, therefore, I would not like to make any comment about the FIR No. 155/2013 PS Shalimar Bagh (State Vs. Arshdeep Singh) Page 6 of 14 allegations pertaining to those allegations though, parties are contemplating taking steps for quashing of such FIR in view of amicable settlement.
6.1 Entire case of prosecution is dependent upon the testimony of PW6 Balwinder Kaur. There is no other witness to the aforesaid accident. Only complainant Balwinder Kaur is in a position to divulge as to under what circumstances the accident had taken place. Evidently and manifestly, only she holds the key to the issue in question and is in a position to state whether it was a case of deliberate accident or an unintended one.
6.2 PW6 Balwinder Kaur deposed that on 14.04.2013, she had come to her parental home. Her husband came there to take her back on 17.04.2013. They started from there at about 11.15 PM in Santro car. It will be appropriate if I extract the deposition made by her which is very germane to the issue in question. Relevant part of her testimony reads as under:-
"......On 14/04/2013, I had come to my parental home. My husband had come to take me back on 17/04/2013. We started from our home at about 11.15 p.m. We were in a Santro car. My husband was driving the same and I was with him. Immediately after we started from my parental home, my husband started quarreling with me. I told him that we can talk after we reach our home. However, accused started claiming that I did not use to respect his sister and his Jijaji. He then gave punches in my stomach. He also used vulgar language for our unborn child and claimed that he would kill him. Enroute, he also hit our car on the backside of a running truck. At a short distance from there, he then hit the car against a tree giving us a very strong impact. He had caused the accidents deliberately in order to harm me and my unborn child and collided the car against the truck as well as against the three in such a manner that only the passenger sitting in the left front side receives the injuries..."
6.3 I have already noted above that in the statement of accused, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused had claimed that a stray dog had come in front of his car and he had to steer his car which resulted in accident. However, FIR No. 155/2013 PS Shalimar Bagh (State Vs. Arshdeep Singh) Page 7 of 14 suggestion given to PW6 Balwinder Kaur is altogether different. It was suggested to her that collision had taken place due to brake failure of the car. Thus, defence itself seems confused and perplexed and it is not comprehensible as to how, even according to the accused, accident took place - whether due to sudden appearance of a stray dog in front of the car or due to brake failure.
6.4 There is no other eyewitness of the accident. Moreover, even if there was one, even his testimony would not have proved much useful in the present peculiar backdrop of the case. Accident had taken place at late hour of the night and any outsider would have been in no position to comment whether the accident was deliberate or otherwise.
6.5 I have carefully gone through the cross-examination of complainant and the suggestions put to her. I have not been able to find out any reason which may demonstrate that her deposition is false, artificial, made up or fabricated. Undoubtedly, there was matrimonial discard between the couple but that by itself would not mean that complainant would go to such an extent that she would implicate her husband in such a serious matter. Moreover, that night she was returning with her husband to her matrimonial home. I do not find any substantial reason which may indicate that she was so much fed up by with her matrimonial life that taking advantage of the accident, she churned out a false story to take revenge and to settle scores with her husband.
6.6 Defence has stressed that during investigation itself, complainant had filed an affidavit in favour of accused which clearly implies that the statement made by her before the SDM was nothing but bundle of lies. I, however, do not find any merit in such contention.
6.7 Her statement was recorded by Sh. M.B. Malhotra the then SDM, Saraswati Vihar. In her such statement, she categorically claimed that her husband had given fist blows on her abdominal region and hit truck and then hit the car against a tree. I have also carefully gone through the affidavit dated 04.07.2013 on which defence has hugely relied upon. I would not mince any word in commenting that such affidavit does not go in favour of accused. In such FIR No. 155/2013 PS Shalimar Bagh (State Vs. Arshdeep Singh) Page 8 of 14 affidavit, Balwinder Kaur merely claimed that she was the complainant in the present FIR and was married to accused Arshdeep Singh and during pendency of the FIR, efforts were made with the intervention of common friends, relatives and respectable persons of the society and keeping in mind the consideration of her married life, she had settled all her grievances with her husband and in-laws. She claimed that her husband and her in-laws were taking full care of her and were providing medical attention and, therefore, she did not want to pursue her complaint any further.
6.8 Naturally, her first endeavour was to save her matrimonial life and in order to attain such objective, she might have thought to exonerate her husband. In her such affidavit, she nowhere whispered that her previous complaint against her husband was false or incorrect. She rather, in no uncertain words, claimed that she did not want to pursue her complaint. Merely because, she decided not to pursue her complaint would not mean that whatever she stated before the SDM was wrong. Therefore, defence cannot be permitted to dig out any advantage from the aforesaid affidavit Ex. PW6/DA.
6.9 Balwinder Kaur was taken to Fortis Hospital but it is not amply clear as to who brought her to the hospital - whether her husband or someone else. Her MLC has been proved as Ex. PW13/B. Dr. Ashish Jain was posted in Fortis Hospital at the relevant time and Balwinder Kaur remained under his treatment. Dr. Jain deposed that Balwinder Kaur had been brought to the casualty with alleged history of RTA with eight months Primigravidae and with strong suspicion of abruption with possibility of fetal IUD. He deposed that emergency LSCS & laparotomy was done with suturing of peritoneal wall abrasion. Dead fetus was taken out without any signs of life. He deposed that MRI brain of patient revealed no intracranial injury. Patient also underwent ORIF and nailing-screw fixation for comminuted compound Type-I supra condylar fracture of right femur. His detailed report has been proved as Ex. PW13/A. 6.10 Since unborn child died due to the aforesaid accident, postmortem of fetus was conducted. Reference in this regard be made to the testimony of autopsy surgeon PW16 Dr. Sudesh Kumar. He has proved his report as Ex.
FIR No. 155/2013 PS Shalimar Bagh (State Vs. Arshdeep Singh) Page 9 of 14PW16/A and as per his report, no definite opinion regarding cause of death could be given. It will be also important to mention here that a specific court question was also put to him in order to ascertain the reason behind the death of such unborn child. Such court question and corresponding answer read as under:-
Court Q: If a lady, bearing child of eight months in her womb, gets external pressure on her abdominal region, then whether in such a situation also, such fetus can die in the womb? Ans. Yes. There can be multiple reasons. Vol. However, the best answer in this regard can be given by the treating doctor. The injury on fetus would only be found in case there is very heavy blunt force impact to the abdomen of such lady which needs to be again co-related with the report of the concerned treating doctor of such lady. In the present case, the fetus was delivered dead.
6.11 Surely, there can be multiple reasons for death of fetus inside the womb and though there is no expert opinion from any gynecologist yet fact remains that testimony of Balwinder Kaur gives a clear insight as to what had happened when she was travelling with her husband in said Santro car. She has raised a clear-cut accusing finger towards her husband. According to her, her husband had punched her in her abdominal region and deliberately caused the accident. First collision was against a truck. Quite possibly, the truck driver did not choose to stop because of there being inconsequential damage to his truck as it had been hit by a smaller vehicle and that too from behind.
6.12 However, as far as Santro car is concerned, it got damaged quite severely. Reference in this regard be made to the photographs of the car as well as to the testimony of Mechanical Inspector. PW14 ASI/Tech. Devender Kumar had carried out such mechanical inspection. Report of Santro car bearing no. DL-
4CAV-0981 has been proved as Ex. PW14/A and according to such report, he noted following damages on the Santro car:-
1) Front bumper and body damage
2) Front side chassis damaged
3) Front side body damaged FIR No. 155/2013 PS Shalimar Bagh (State Vs. Arshdeep Singh) Page 10 of 14
4) Bonnet and grill damaged
5) AC condenser and radiator damaged
6) Engine and gear box system damaged
7) Front wind screen glass broken
8) Front both wheel suspension system damaged
9) Wiring system damaged
10) Both headlights damaged 6.13 Interestingly, he found the brake system to be okay which also automatically implies that the defence has come up with lame excuse and bogus stand. It really does not matter if Mechanical Inspector was not able to decipher between the damage on account of two different collisions. Moreover, when the two collisions take place one after the other, it cannot be said to be easy for any expert to comment as to what damage could have been caused by the first accident and what by the other. Photographs placed on record clearly go on to show that front side was badly hit as the Santro car had banged against the tree.
6.14 I have also seen the testimony of PW4 Balbir Singh. He deposed that initially at about 11.15 PM or so he received a call from his daughter and then he heard some noise in the background and thereafter the call got disconnected. He then received another call from Fortis Hospital at 2.00 AM and then learnt that his daughter had met with an accident. He rushed to the hospital along with his son where he found his daughter admitted in an unconscious state. He also learnt that baby inside her womb was almost dead and, therefore, operation was required to be done to take such baby out. He deposed that when his daughter regained consciousness next day, she revealed about the act and conduct of the accused.
6.15 Learned defence counsel has contended that his testimony is of not much help as his testimony is primarily hearsay in nature. Undoubtedly, as already noticed above, it is the complainant only who is in a position to give true account of the incident but nonetheless testimony of Balbir Singh acts as a strong corroboration. It would have been certainly better if the call details record had been collected and had been placed on the record but lapse on this aspect FIR No. 155/2013 PS Shalimar Bagh (State Vs. Arshdeep Singh) Page 11 of 14 cannot be said to be fatal.
6.16 PW5 Hardeep Singh happens to be the brother of PW6 Balwinder Kaur and he had reached the hospital along with his father after he learnt about the news of the accident. Undoubtedly, he has no personal knowledge of the circumstances leading to the accident but he denied that accused had been falsely implicated and that it was only a freak accident and not a case of intentional collision.
6.17 Investigational aspects are not much in dispute.
6.18 PW11 ASI L.N. Sharma had reached the spot on receipt of DD No. 4A. Such DD No. 4A was recorded by PW1 Ct. Rajkumar and he has proved the same as Ex. PW1/A. As per such DD No. 4A, information was provided that one Santro car had collided against one tree near Prem Bari Pul.
6.19 PW11 ASI L.N. Sharma along with Ct. Balkari rushed to the spot and they found PCR vehicle along with its incharge at the spot. They also saw Santro car in accidental condition having hit against one tree. He noticed front side of the vehicle in damaged condition. No eyewitness or occupant of the car was found at the spot. He then learnt through telephonic communication received from HC Chiranji Lal that injured related to such accident had already been admitted in Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh. He left Ct. Balkari for preservation of spot and rushed to Fortis Hospital. Balwinder Kaur had been declared unfit for statement. Arshdeep was found fit for statement but he denied to make any statement claiming that he was under pain. He then prepared rukka. Site plan was prepared at the instance of Incharge of PCR van.
6.20 PW3 ASI Narain Singh was posted in PCR, North-West District at the relevant time. He deposed that while patrolling when they were going towards Singhal Pur from Prem Bari flyover, they saw one Santro car in accidental condition which had already struck against one tree. According to him, time was 1.10 AM and they did not find anyone inside the car. He also did not notice any driver or anyone else. He informed about the aforesaid accident through PCR FIR No. 155/2013 PS Shalimar Bagh (State Vs. Arshdeep Singh) Page 12 of 14 wireless to control room. Pursuant to such all, ASI L.N. Sharma reached at the spot. He has also corroborated IO by claiming that ASI L.N. Sharma had prepared the site plan at his instance and then Santro car was towed through private crane.
6.21 I have also seen the photographs on record i.e. Ex. PW6/B1 to B5 which show substantial damage to the car in question. Though ideally, these photographs should have been taken immediately after the taking off the investigation yet these photographs go on to corroborate the version of complainant.
6.22 I have also carefully perused the testimony of remaining witnesses including Sh. Mani Bhushan Malhotra, Executive Magistrate, SI Sanjay Kumar and SI Kamal Singh. There is nothing in their testimony which may cause any suspicion with respect to the truthfulness and creditworthiness in the case of prosecution.
Conclusion 7.0 Upshot of evaluation of evidence is incontrovertibly one. It becomes manifest from the testimony of complainant Balwinder Kaur that it was not a case of simple unintended accident. Accident is on account of deliberate and conscious act and conduct of the accused. It also stands proved that before causing such deliberate collision, accused even gave blows to his pregnant wife. Such act also lays bare his intention. Of course, his own life was also on stake. Manner in which the accident had taken place indicates that there was every chance of his too getting badly injured. He should rather thank his stars as he escaped unhurt, virtually.
7.1 Keeping in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the sterling quality of deposition made by Balwinder Kaur, it stands proved that accused had given blows on the belly region of his wife and thereafter deliberately collided his running car against a tree which resulted in death of their unborn child. His act exposes that he had clear-cut intention as well as FIR No. 155/2013 PS Shalimar Bagh (State Vs. Arshdeep Singh) Page 13 of 14 knowledge that by his such actions, he could have caused death of his wife as well. Accused was fully cognizant of the fact his wife was in advanced stage of pregnancy. It can be safely assumed that he surely knew that his act could have caused death of his wife as well as of unborn child. He, however, did not bother about her feeble condition and intentionally albeit foolishly caused the accident.
7.2 Resultantly, accused Arshdeep Singh is held guilty and convicted for commission of offences under Sections 307/316 IPC.
Announced in the open Court (MANOJ JAIN) On this 1st day of August 2016. Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) North-West District: Rohini: Delhi FIR No. 155/2013 PS Shalimar Bagh (State Vs. Arshdeep Singh) Page 14 of 14 FIR No. 155/13 PS : Shalimar Bagh State Vs. Arshdeep Singh 10-08-2016 Present: Sh. Sanjay Jindal, Ld. Addl. PP for State.
Convict in person with Sh. Anuj Handa, learned defence counsel.
Sh. S.S. Tyagi, learned counsel for complainant with father of complainant.
1 The case was earlier fixed for 04/08/2016 but that day, convict did not appear and bailable warrants were issued.
2 Sh. Anuj Handa, learned defence counsel, has contended that the entrance gates were locked by the members of RCBA and, therefore, convict could not gain entry. An application to that effect has also been moved. Heard. Bailable warrants are recalled.
3 I have heard arguments on sentence.
4 Learned Addl. PP has prayed for taking stern-most action.
5 Sh. Handa has, on the other hand, prayed for maximum leniency and compassion. He has contended that convict had remained behind the bars during the investigation also while reiterating that the accident in question was purely unintended.
6 Sh. Tyagi, learned counsel for complainant, as per the instructions received by him from the side of complainant party, has contended that matrimonial disputes between the parties have been amicably settled and even the first motion has been recorded. He states that since there is amicable settlement, he does not want any further action against the convict and prays that he may be let off on the period already undergone by him.
FIR No. 155/2013 PS Shalimar Bagh (State Vs. Arshdeep Singh) Page 15 of 147 I have made my queries from the father of complainant. He is also of the same view. Earlier, even the complainant had also stated so before the Court.
8 Copy of settlement, which was filed before the Court of Sh. Dilbagh Singh Punia, learned Principal Judge, Family Court (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, has been perused. As per clause-4 of said settlement deed, complainant Balwinder Kaur had undertaken, inter alia, to co-operate for the purpose of closure/quashing of such proceedings related to FIR No. 155/13, PS Shalimar Bagh. Convict has agreed to make payment of Rs. 31 lacs with respect to full and final settlement regarding stridhan, maintenance etc. A sum of Rs. 12 lacs has already been paid to the complainant.
9 Written arguments have also been submitted by the convict and he assures that he would stick to the settlement terms.
10 I also cannot be unmindful of the fact that convict is a young man of 31 years of age. He has no previous bad antecedents. This happens to be his first offence. He is in the business of manufacturing of chemical pumps. He has one sister who is already married. He has no brother and, therefore, according to Sh. Handa, his aged parents are dependent upon him.
11 Convict was arrested on 23/05/2013 and was directed to be released on bail vide order dated 11/06/2013.
12 Keeping in mind the young age and previous clean antecedents of the convict and also taking cue from the fact that even the complainant, the actually aggrieved person, does not want any sort of action against the convict, I am compelled to take a lenient view.
13 As an upshot of my aforesaid discussion, I hereby sentence the convict as under:
Offence Substantive sentence Fine Sentence in
default of payment
of fine
FIR No. 155/2013 PS Shalimar Bagh (State Vs. Arshdeep Singh) Page 16 of 14
Sec. Period already undergone Rs. 1,00,000/- 6 months S.I.
307 IPC during the investigation i.e. (Rupees One lac) from 23/05/2013 to 11/06/2013 Sec. Period already undergone Rs. 2,50,000/- 6 months S.I. 316 IPC during the investigation i.e. (Rupees Two lacs from 23/05/2013 to and fifty thousand) 11/06/2013 14 Though the complainant does not want any further action or compensation, yet keeping in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I find it to be a fit case where the Court should invoke its power u/s 357 Cr.P.C. and should direct that the recovered fine be applied for compensation for the loss and injury caused to the complainant.
15 Accordingly, it is directed that the entire such amount of Rs. 3.5 lacs (Rupees three lacs and fifty thousand only), if deposited, be released to complainant Balwinder Kaur after the expiry of period of appeal or as per the outcome of appeal, if any, as the case may be.
16 Convict seeks to deposit the entire fine amount. Fine amount be deposited accordingly.
17 Let refund voucher in the name of complainant Balwinder Kaur be prepared after the expiry of period of appeal.
FIR No. 155/2013 PS Shalimar Bagh (State Vs. Arshdeep Singh) Page 17 of 1418 I would, however, like to emphasize right here that both the learned counsels i.e. Sh. Anuj Handa and Sh. S.S. Tyagi have claimed that they are not desirous of filing any appeal. Be that as it may, refund voucher may be prepared after the expiry of period of appeal.
19 A copy of judgment as well as of order on sentence be given to convict free of cost.
21 File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court On this 10th day of August 2016. (MANOJ JAIN) Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) North-West District: Rohini: Delhi FIR No. 155/2013 PS Shalimar Bagh (State Vs. Arshdeep Singh) Page 18 of 14