Bombay High Court
Madhukar Chandar Alias Ramchandra ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 January, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1993CRILJ3281
JUDGMENT Saldanha, J.
1. Instances do arise before criminal Courts where the question is validly posed as to whether consigning the accused to jail is the most appropriate form of punishment and whether the plight of the aggrieved parties is not of equal consequence. Where the accused, a young agriculturist with no criminal antecedents, acting with impassioned zeal, went to the assistance of his sister in seemingly chivalrous exercise and stabbed her husband to death, he was liable to be convicted under S. 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court has the option of imposing a fine apart from a jail sentence and the predominant consideration would be to ensure retribution for the damage done - in this case to the old mother who lost her only son and to the three young children who are left fatherless. The conduct of the wife, in this instance, disqualifies her from any consideration. First, however, the facts.
2. This appeal arises out of an incident that took place on the night of 2-11-1988 at about 8-30 p.m. at village Navadar Beli, New Colony, which is situated close to Alibag. It is alleged that the deceased Balaram and his wife Babita were resident in a small house along with their three young children, the couple having been married for about seven to eight years. The familiar situation of friction between the wife Babita and her mother-in-law Parvatibai had manifested itself in this household also and it appears that the deceased Balaram was torn between his duty to his mother which made him do various little things for her, such as providing her with occasional gifts of fish, etc. and the disapproval of his wife who resented his maternal ties. That there was considerable friction between the two women in the household is evident from the fact that Balaram ultimately constructed a separate little room on the front verandah of the house for the mother to stay separately from the rest of the family.
3. It is further alleged that when Balaram and the family were in the source of their night meal at about 8-30 p.m. on 2-11-1988, which also happened to be Diwali day, the accused, who is the brother of Babita, is supposed to have come there dressed in a white shirt and white trousers, that he put his hands against the door-frame and asked Balaram as to what was going on in the house, obviously referring to the domestic problems concerning his sister. He is also supposed to have made a statement that he has come to give justice. Balaram asked the accused, Madhukar Patil, to come inside and to join them for the meal, which he declined to do. He is alleged to have caught Balaram by his clothes and dragged him in the courtyard in the course of which a scuffle took place. Balaram was heard shouting out that the accused has taken out a knife. Parvatibai (PW 1) has stated that she saw the accused giving a blow on the abdomen of the deceased Balaram with that knife and she has also alleged that the wife Babita tried to intervene and to snatch the knife from the accused. Since the deceased Balaram was bleeding profusely, Parvatibai came into the courtyard and sat down with the head of the deceased Balaram on her lap, the accused having in the meanwhile got on to a bicycle and left the place. Parvatibai stated that when she had shouted out, her nephew Ramesh Salavkar (PW 5) came there and she told him that the accused has stabbed Balaram and escaped from that place. Ramesh Salavkar is alleged to have immediately gone to inform the Police Patil and thereafter brought an autorickshaw. The deceased Balaram along with Babita and the Police Patil drove to the hospital at Alibag, but the deceased hardly survived the journey and was declared dead when he reached the hospital.
4. In the meanwhile, it is alleged that an alarm was raised and that the accused was chased and caught by some persons, one of whom is Dileep Salavkar (PW 6). They alleged that he was apprehended by them at which time he throw something which he had with him into the courtyard of one Raut. The accused was brought back to the house and tied to a pillar. It appears that the father of the Police Patil reached the Revdanda Police Station, which is some distance away, and lodged a complaint with the Police Station Officer, pursuant to which the police came to the village and commenced their investigations. The record indicates that the accused was taken into custody by the Alibag Police and that he continued to be in their custody till the afternoon of the next day when the Investigating Officer in the present case formally placed him under arrest in relation to the present charge. After his arrest, the accused is alleged to have made a statement pursuant to which the officers and the Panchas were taken to the compound of Raut and the accused is alleged to have produced the handle of the murder weapon. In the instant case, the weapon used is a crude country-made knife which is sharpened on both sides and tapered to a point. The whole of it is painted blue and it is made of metal, the blade obviously having been designed to be fitted into a handle. This knife is in two pieces, the blade portion of which is alleged to have been found in the courtyard of Parvatibai's house and the rear portion of the handle, if one may call it that, is what is alleged to have been discovered by the police. On completion of the investigations, the accused was charge-sheeted and placed on trial and the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag accepted the prosecution evidence and convicted the appellant-accused under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was awarded a sentence of imprisonment for life. Bail having been refused, the accused is at present in custody. It is this conviction and sentence that has been assailed in the present appeal.
5. Shri Mohite, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has taken us through the prosecution evidence and the record of this appeal with a degree of meticulousness, which requires to be commanded. He has also analysed the evidence and submitted before us that each of the heads relied upon by the trial Court for purposes of the conviction, if carefully scrutinized, would be found unacceptable for purposes of recording a finding against the appellant. To start with, he has assailed the evidence of the mother of the deceased Balaram, Parvatibai (PW 1), principally, on the ground that even though she is a natural witness since she is resident in the front portion of that very house that since there was no electricity and the family was managing with a small lamp that she could not have seen the incident in the manner in which she has described it. Parvatibai has given her age as 70 years. Shri Mohite submitted that even if one accepts that she was around the place and that she saw her son after he was attacked that one cannot reconcile the fact that Parvatibai is very categorical about only one blow having been given by the accused; whereas the medical evidence unmistakably indicates two distinct stab injuries. Apart from these aspects, Shri Mohite has pointed out that the Panchanama virtually recreates the incident in so far as there are large patches of blood to be found in certain places which are entirely different to the ones where, according to Parvatibai, the incident took place and the deceased had fallen down. There are a few other improvements and infirmities in the evidence of Parvatibai. It is the general submission of Shri Mohite that she being virtually the only eye-witness, that the Court must discard her evidence.
6. The learned A.P.P. has sought to submit that the status in life and the age of Parvatibai must be taken into account while assessing her evidence, that nothing has come on record to indicate that she has fabricated and, above all, that the accused, who is the brother of her daughter-in-law Babita, was a person known to her and, under these circumstances, it would be wholly unjust to totally discard her evidence. We are conscious of the few infirmities that have, undoubtedly, been highlighted and we consider that this Court must take a realistic view of the situation. The presence of Parvatibai cannot be disputed and she had ample opportunity to see the accused during the talk and the altercation which preceded the assault. It is clear that the accused was standing on the verandah of the house itself a few feet from where Parvatibai was and even if the light was relatively weak, there is no reason whatsoever for her to mistake the identity of the accused. One cannot expect evidence from a person of the status of Parvatibai (PW 1), who is a villager aged 70 years and that too who has also gone through the horrifying experience of losing her son in the incident, to be of a computerlike precision. We are more than satisfied that she is a witness of truth and that she had faithfully deposed to what, in fact, had happened on that evening, the infirmities being both trifling and inconsequential.
7. Shri Mohite is, undoubtedly, on a stronger footing while dealing with a evidence of the neighbour, Ujwala Salavkar (PW 2). Ujwala Salavkar claims that the accused, Madhukar Patil, came up to her on that night and asked for the address of Balaram's house. She has admitted that she knew the accused by name and that he was the brother of Babita, in spite of which in her Police Statement and in her evidence before the Court she has referred to him as "one unknown person". She claims to have come on to the scene of offence immediately on hearing the cries of Parvatibai (PW 1). Shri Mohite has submitted, and perhaps rightly, that there is no valid explanation for this witness to have referred to the accused Madhukar Patil as "one unknown person" if she knew him and it is quite obvious, therefore, that the meeting she speaks of prior to the incident could not have taken place. The learned A.P.P. advanced some explanation for the conduct of Ujwala Salavkar, but, in our considered view, her evidence will have to be brushed aside.
8. We then have on record the evidence of Ramesh Salavkar (PW 5), who is admittedly a relation and who alleges that he was the first person to whom Parvatibai disclosed the name of the accused. Shri Mohite had taken considerable pains to point out to us that Parvatibai does not refer to his presence and, more importantly, that this witness appears to have conveyed to the father of the Police Patil that the brother of Kashinath had committed the offence. This infirmity, to our mind, is not of grave consequence because the general tenor of the evidence on record, which is relatively satisfactory, indicates that Ramesh Salavkar had, in fact, conveyed the happening of the incident immediately at the house of the Police Patil which was why his father Kashinath Patil went to the Ravdanda Police Station and reported the matter. The evidence of Ramesh Salavkar is, therefore, good enough, but it must be admitted that Ramesh Salavkar was not an eye-witness to the incident.
9. Coming to the second head of evidence, Shri Mohite has assailed the deposition of Dileep Salavkar (PW 6), who projects himself to be the hero of the whole episode by claiming that it was he who had apprehended the accused while he was making a get away on his bicycle. He has stated that a number of persons raised an alarm and were running after the accused shouting "chor, chor"; whereupon he along with others caught hold of the accused and brought him back to Balaram's house and tied him to a pillar. We also have the evidence of Shantaram Salavkar (PW 7), who is a nephew of Parvatibai (PW 1) and claims that on hearing the commotion he came there with a petromax light. Shri Mohite pointed out to us that Dileep Salavkar makes no reference to the petromax; whereas he does refer to the accused having thrown something into the compound of one Raut. The main head of criticism as far as the apprehending of the accused is concerned is that if there were other persons who took part in this, that the prosecution ought not to have kept them back and Shri Mohite attacks the credibility of this witness on the ground that if they had brought the accused back to Balaram's house and tied him to a pillar, as they allege, that there is no reason why the accused was not found at that place when the Investigating Officer, Ramesh Deshmukh (PW 15), from the Revdanda Police Station, came there at midnight. Shri Mohite submits that the entire story made out with regard to the accused having been apprehended on the road and the fact that his clothes were found to have blood-stains on them is manifestly false and has been put forward by the prosecution in order to link the accused with the incident when, in fact, except for Parvatibai's (PW 1) evidence, which he has seriously attacked, there is no material to conclusively indicate that it was the accused, Madhukar Patil, who had stabbed the deceased Balaram.
10. In this regard, Shri Mohite pointed out to us that the prosecution has examined Damodar Raut (PW 10), who is the Panch relating to the recovery of the bicycle. This bicycle on which the accused is alleged to have been making his escape was found on the road in a damaged condition. Nine spokes of the rear wheel were broken, the front wheel was jammed and the handle of the bicycle was bent. More importantly, it was found to be a bicycle owned by Sunil Cycle Mart of Bazar Peth, Alibag. The prosecution has not indicated from the evidence of the owner of the cycle mart as to who had hired this bicycle and, secondly, the damaged condition in which it was found would clearly indicate that it was not in a condition to be ridden. In these circumstances, Shri Mohite submitted that the evidence of the witnesses that the accused was escaping on the bicycle is manifestly false.
11. It is true that the evidence of the owner of the Sunil Cycle Mart would have certainly advanced the prosecution case and, furthermore, that the manner in the which the bicycle sustained the damage should have been explained. However, on a scrutiny of the relevant Panchanama and the tenor of the evidence of these witnesses, it would be difficult for us to seriously impute any dishonesty to them as a careful examination of this material would indicate that it is good enough for purposes of establishing that the accused was apprehended by these persons shortly after the incident and that at the relevant time blood-stains were found on his clothes.
12. Shri Mohite has pointed out to us that there is a serious lacuna in the prosecution cases as far as the blood-stains are concerned. The Investigating Officer, Ramesh Deshmukh (PW 15), states that the accused was in the custody of the Alibag Police Station; whereas the scene of offence comes under the jurisdiction of the Revdanda Police Station which was why he registered an offence and commenced the investigations. Kashinath Patil (PW 11), the father of the Police Patil, had, undoubtedly, gone to the Revdanda Police Station and conveyed the information regarding the offence on that night. Patil is very clear about the fact that his complaint was taken down in writing by the P.S.O. The Police Sub-Inspector, Ramesh Deshmukh (PW 15), however, denies this and states that even though the information was orally conveyed that it was not taken down in the form of an F.I.R. He states that on being informed about the incident at his residence, he came to the Police Station, made a station diary entry, which again unfortunately has not been produced, proceeded to the house of Parvatibai (PW 1) and took down her statement which he treated as the First Information Report. There is a serious challenge to this statement having been treated as the First Information Report because Parvatibai states that her statement was recorded on the next day. Shri Mohite submits that even if the Police Sub-Inspector Ramesh Deshmukh is right when he contends that this statement was recorded on the midnight of the 2nd itself, that the investigation having been commenced pursuant to Kashinath's report at the Revdanda Police Station, and that, therefore, Parvatibai's (PW 1) statement has wrongly been treated as the First Information Report by the trial Court. This submission must be upheld because we have spent considerable time going through the record pursuant to the aforesaid objections canvassed by learned counsel and even though there appears to be some dispute with regard to whether Kashinath's report was taken down in writing or not, there is no doubt that information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence had reached the Police Station and it is this information alone under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which could have been treated as the First Information Report. Fortunately, that does not make any appreciable difference to the present case.
13. As indicated by us earlier, P.S.I. Ramesh Deshmukh (PW 15) proceeded on the next day to the Alibag Police Station where the accused was placed under arrest in the afternoon. Sham Salavkar (PW 9) is the Panch examined at the time when the clothes of the accused were taken charge of. Shri Mohite pointed out to us that the evidence of the Panch is vague and unsatisfactory and, more importantly, that he states that the Panchanama had been virtually completed when he was called to the Police Station. There are, undoubtedly, some infirmities in the procedure adopted by the prosecution at this point of time, but we are sufficiently re-informed by the evidence of the P.S.I. and from the description of the clothes of the accused, their condition, etc., that the garments attached by the police at the time of the arrest of the accused were, in fact, the ones worn by him and that these did contain certain blood-stains. The prosecution ought to have pointed out to the Court the reasons and the circumstances under which the accused was taken into custody by the Alibag Police Station and not having done so, it was left to us to do considerable research in the Court Room into the various documents produced before the trial Court from which it ultimately emerged that the Circle Inspector, who was camping at Revdanda on that night, instructed that Police Station to send a wireless message to the Alibag Police Station to take charge of the accused, the ostensible reason being that the village to which he belonged came under their jurisdiction. The accused had been caught by the villagers, the Alibag Police Station possessed a vehicle, and obviously the Circle Inspector did not desire that the accused be left to the mercy of the crowd.
14. The Chemical Analyser's Report in the present case is of some significance because one of the circumstances that has been used heavily against the accused is the fact that on an analysis being done, the blood-stains on his clothes and the blood on the shirt, which the deceased Balaram was wearing, matched each other in so far as both belonged to "AB" group. The blood of the accused is of "A" group and he has not tendered any explanation as to how blood of the "AB" group has been found on his garments. Shri Mohite assailed this evidence on two grounds, the first of them being that the procedure whereby the shift of the deceased was attached is faulty. He had drawn our attention to the evidence of Sudam Joshi (PW 14), who states that the clothes of the deceased Balaram were handed over to Police Constable D. J. Patil at the hospital and that he has, in turn, handed over the clothes to this witness. Admittedly, Police Constable D. J. Patil had not been examined and, therefore, Shri Mohite contended that the vital link for purposes of establishing that the blood-stained shirt was, in fact, the one worn by the deceased at the time of the incident is missing. This challenge, to our mind, is not of much consequence because Police Head Constable Joshi (PW 14) is quite clear about the fact that the garments produced by him were the very ones which Police Constable D. J. Patil had brought from the hospital and handed over to him. The non-examination of Police Constable D. J. Patil is, therefore, inconsequential. We have, however, taken the added precaution of examining the shirt in question ourselves and there can be little dispute about the fact that the gray-coloured shirt, which was described by the other witnesses and which has two distinct cut-marks at the places where the stab injuries were received by the deceased Balaram is the very one that was worn by him. The prosecution has, therefore, established beyond any shred of doubt that this was the shirt worn by the deceased Balaram and the blood found on this shirt matches the blood found on the clothes of the accused.
15. The second ground of attack canvassed by Shri Mohite is that the doctor who performed the post-mortem examination did not take the precaution of collecting a blood sample of the deceased Balaram which would have conclusively indicated that the blood in question belonged to him. It is true that this procedure was not adopted, but the shirt of the deceased Balaram was virtually soaked with blood and the Chemical Analyser did not experience any difficulty in analysing that blood which was found to be human blood of the "AB" group. The finding of the blood of the deceased Balaram on the clothes of the accused is a very strong connective circumstance and, to our mind, it lends all the corroboration that is necessary to the evidence of Parvatibai (PW 1) and, more importantly, to the evidence of the witnesses who claim that they had apprehended him (accused) very shortly after the incident.
16. The Investigating Officer, Ramesh Deshmukh (PW 15), states that when the Panchanama of the scene of offence was drawn up that the blade of the knife, which had blood-stains on it was found at that place. The dispute that has been raised by Shri Mohite is with regard to the recovery of the other part of this knife which, according to the Investigating Officer, was found at the instance of the accused from the compound of one Raut. We have on record the evidence of Dileep Salavkar (PW 6), who states that when the accused was apprehended, he threw something into Raut's compound. The Investigating Officer, undoubtedly, states that on learning of this, he searched the compound in question, but did not find anything there. After the arrest of the accused, he is alleged to have made a certain statement and pursuant to this statement the police discovered the handle of the knife which the accused is alleged to have taken out from under some leaves. Shri Mohite submits that this evidence is worthless to the prosecution for the reason that, according to him, if the accused had thrown the knife at that place and P.S.I. Ramesh Deshmukh (PW 15) had searched the place, it could never happen that the police would not have found the handle of the knife which is not a very small object. On this basis, Shri Mohite pointed out that the remaining evidence of the recovery is worthless to the prosecution because the police already knew the place where the handle is alleged to have been thrown.
17. In this regard, Shri Mohite has relied on an old decision of the Privy Council in the case of Kottaya v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 : (1947 (48) Cri LJ 533), wherein the Court has drawn a distinction between the term "fact discovered" and object produced. Shri Mohite submits that the proposition laid down in this case, namely, that the two concepts cannot be divested from each other in so far as the discovery of an object is inextricably interlinked to the place where it is discovered from and, therefore, knowledge of one is synonymous with the other. In our considered view, the proposition would not be of much assistance to Shri Mohite for the reason that the knowledge gained by the police from Dileep Salavkar (PW 6) was a vague idea of the fact that the accused had thrown something at a particular place. The knowledge was acted upon and the result was in the negative and, therefore, that knowledge would have no bearing on what happened subsequently. It was pursuant to a statement that the accused led the police to the compound of one Raut and produced the knife-handle from under some leaves because obviously he alone knew the exact spot where it had been thrown and this discovery, therefore, is certainly of assistance to the prosecution. Apart from linking the accused with the knowledge of where the handle of the murder weapon was thrown, what is significant in this case is that the knife used had broken into two parts, the first of which was found at the scene of offence and the second one, which was discovered at the instance of the accused, perfectly fits the blood-stained part that was found at the scene of offence. It is in these circumstances that this discovery to our mind is of extreme importance in establishing the prosecution case.
18. Dealing with the medical evidence in case, Shri Mohite pointed out that Parvatibai (PW 1) attributes the infliction of one injury to the accused, Madhukar Patil, whereas the medical evidence conclusively indicates two stab injuries, the first of them being on the higher portion of the chest and the second one being on the left side going into the chest cavity. We have noted the corresponding injuries that have been found out in the course of the post-mortem and we find that the real damage was done by the second of these injuries because it has gone into the chest cavity and punctured the left lung. Shri Mohite sought to contend that even assuming that it is held that the accused inflicted the injuries on the deceased Balaram that in the circumstances of the case at the highest S. 326 of the Indian Penal Code would apply and that the conviction under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code is unsustainable. In this regard, we have noted that the doctor has indicated in the post-mortem notes that each of the injuries is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Unfortunately, in his evidence before the Court, this vital aspect has not been put to him and the evidence is, therefore, silent. It is, therefore, left to the Court to assess from the totality of the evidence produced as to what exactly would be the position in law in the light of the injuries in question. The cause of death given by the doctor is haemorrhagic shock due to penetrating injury to the lung. The all important question that arises is as to whether the deceased Balaram, therefore, died as a result of the combination of these factors and whether, with the assistance of timely medical aid, his life could have been saved. Unfortunately, that aspect has not been canvassed by the defence before the trial Court and we are, therefore, left with no option except to hold that it was these injuries that resulted in the death of Balaram.
19. The last submission canvassed by Shri Mohite is that the prosecution evidence does not disclose any motive for the offence nor, for that matter, is it suggestive of any background. In substance, what is argued, therefore, is that taken at face value, the evidence would indicate that there was some talk which was thereafter followed by a scuffle and ultimately the deceased Balaram received the two injuries. There is no material on record to indicate as to where the knife came from and, having regard to the size and type of the weapon, it is difficult to hold that it could have been carried by the accused when he came there or, for that matter, concealed by him. On a totality of these circumstances, which are of some consequence, and on an overall appraisal of the material before us and after hearing Shri Mohite and the learned A.P.P., it is our finding that the offence would come under S. 304 of the Indian Penal Code and not under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code as has been recorded by the trial Court.
20. On the question of sentence, the learned A.P.P. contended that a life has been lost, that the deceased Balaram has left behind three young children and that, in these circumstances, a heavy sentence must be awarded to the accused. Shri Mohite has pointed out that the accused was aged about 22 years, that he was an agriculturist and that he has no background of any criminal activity. He submitted that if at all the young man has gone wrong, it was because he came forward in an impassioned and violent fashion to assist his sister who was apparently being harassed by the mother-in-law. Shri Mohite submitted that it would be harsh to confine the accused to long years in prison in these circumstances and that having regard to the damage that has been done and that will occur on both sides in that event, that this Court must exercise its discretion in keeping the sentence within reasonable bounds and at the same time ordering adequate retribution to the affected persons. We have avoided dealing with the evidence of the widow of the deceased Balaram, Babita, because even though it is obvious that she was present when the incident took place, we find that she has turned hostile at the time of the trial and this is a matter of some seriousness. The position of the mother of the deceased Balaram, Parvatibai (PW 1), who has lost her only son in the instant case, and of the three young innocent children, who are rendered fatherless as a result of what happened is a factor that impels us to exercise our discretion to ensure that some degree of relief results to these parties while imposing punishment on the accused.
21. In this context, a reference to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chandan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, , would be relevant. In that case, though the facts were slightly different, the Supreme Court was considering the advisability of imposing a jail sentence in a proceeding where a conviction under S. 304 of the Indian Penal Code was recorded against the accused in respect of an incident that had taken place 20 years earlier. The litigation had gone through a chequered history and the Supreme Court expressed the view that having regard to this circumstance a fine would meet the ends of justice. In the present case, the submission that is canvassed on behalf of the accused is that even though he is an ordinary agriculturist that he and his family are anxious that he should be afforded an opportunity to make a fresh start in life and live as a useful citizen and that apart from a sentence the Court should impose a fine that could be capitalised and used for the benefit and welfare of the mother of the deceased Balaram, Parvatibai (PW 1), and the three young children. For the reasons earlier indicated by us, we have deliberately excluded the widow Babita. We see considerable justification in the plea that has been canvassed on behalf of the accused.
22. The learned A.P.P. has strongly opposed the adoption of any such formula because he has pointed out that it would unfortunately have the result of creating a precedent in cases relating to acts of serious violence. He submitted that for good reason the law prescribes heavy jail sentences for the acts that have resulted in the loss of life and that it is of equal importance, particularly in the present day context, that such instances should not be viewed at with any degree of sympathy by the Court. The submissions canvassed are, undoubtedly, valid. We do not find fault with them, but it is also essential for a Court to distinguish and differentiate on the special and compelling facts and circumstances that may be peculiar to a particular case. In criminal law, inevitably decisions are given in relation to the special facts of each case. It is true that there is no precedent before us, but we do not hesitate in adopting the view that we propose to take because, to our mind, the interests of justice so require. We have carefully assessed the economic condition of the accused and his family. The accused is an agriculturist, his business being vegetable cultivation and he owns only 1/2 acre of land. It is not easy for him to raise the amount of Rs. 40,000/- and it will be many years of virtual "punishment" for him to repay it. True justice will, however, be achieved because old Parvatibai and her three grand-children will, at least, receive some sustenance which the deceased Balaram would have otherwise provided.
23. The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant- accused under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to him by the trial Court is also set aside. The appellant-accused stands convicted of the offence under S. 304 of the Indian Penal Code and it is directed that he shall undergo a sentence of ten years' rigorous imprisonment for the said offence. This Court, however, on the special facts of this case, awards an option to the appellant-accused to pay a fine aggregating to Rs. 40,000/- in all, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years totally. In the event of the appellant paying the fine, which shall be deposited in the trial Court within a period of 12 weeks from today, it is clarified that the jail sentence shall stand reduced to one of three years' rigorous imprisonment.
24. Out of the fine, if paid, the trial Court shall pay over a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to Parvatibai (PW 1), mother of the deceased Balaram. This shall be done after taking necessary steps to ensure that the person to whom the fine is paid is, in fact, Parvatibai. It is left to the discretion of the learned Sessions Judge to ensure that the money is not only received by her but that it is used entirely for her benefit. As far as the remaining amount of Rs. 30,000/- is concerned, the trial Court shall ensure that the same is invested by the Court for the benefit of the three minor children in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each. The trial Court shall ensure that the investment is done either with a bank or with a Mutual Fund in such manner as would yield income on a monthly basis which amount shall be utilised for the benefit of each of the three minor children. It shall be open to the Court to direct that the money be paid to the legal guardian of the children during their minority after ensuring that the income amount is, in fact, used for the benefit of the minor children. The Court shall also ensure that on each of the minors attaining majority that the principal amount of Rs. 10,000/- is paid over to each of them.
25. The trial Court shall ensure, after issuing necessary notice to the concerned parties, that the needful is done without any delay and that the benefits outlined in this judgment are, in fact, received by each of the persons concerned. The appeal is thus partly allowed.
26. Order accordingly.