Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 687 (DEL)

MUNNA LAL v. STATE OF DELHI

2000-08-18

DALVEER BHANDARI

body2000
Dalveer Bhandari ( 1 ) THE appellant is aggrieved with the order dated 9. 2. 1978 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by which he was convicted under Sections 363 and 366, Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to one year s rigorous imprisonment under Section 363 and two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 366, Indian Penal Code. It may be pertinent to mention that the appellant was acquitted for the charge under Section 376, Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. ( 2 ) THE prosecution story in brief is that on 8th May, 1976, Lachman Dass Gandhi made a statement to the ASI that his daughter Gulshan Kumari did not return from the school. He had suspicion that his daughter was taken away by one boy named Munna. After investigations, Gulshan Kumari was recovered alongwith Munna. Her statement was recorded by the Sub-Inspector Badrinath in which she stated that her date of birth is 20. 7. 1957 (19 years at the time of the alleged incidence ). ( 3 ) ACCORDING to her statement, Munna used to sell Kulfi and she off and on was buying Kulfi from him and during that period she fell in love with him. She further stated that she accompanied him to various places including Gwalior, where she stayed with Munna s brother-in-law. There she was subjected to sexual intercourse against her wishes. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not convict the petitioner for the charge under Section 376. However, he convicted the appellant under Sections 363 and 366, Indian Penal Code. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses in respect of this case. I have perused the statements of prosecution witnesses and other material on record. No interference is called for. However, on the question of releasing the appellant on the sentence already undergone, following judgments have been relied upon. ( 4 ) RELIANCE has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarup Chand v. State of Pun]ab, reported in 1987 (1) Crimes 818. In this case the appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 161, Indian Penal Code and under Section 5 (l) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The conviction was upheld by the High Court. In this case the appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 161, Indian Penal Code and under Section 5 (l) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The conviction was upheld by the High Court. In appeal, Hon ble the Supreme Court while maintaining the conviction had reduced the sentence to the period already undergone on the ground that six years have passed from the date of the incident and this is the first time the appellant had committed an offence. ( 5 ) IN the instant case, the appellant has remained in custody for some time and 24 years have lapsed since the date of the incidence. It is further stated that the appellant has not been involved in other criminal case, therefore, according to the learned Amicus Curiae following the ratio of aforesaid judgment while maintaining the conviction of the appellant in this case, the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. ( 6 ) THE learned Amicus Curiae also relied on the judgment of this Court in the judgment of Inder Parkesh Shingal v. State, 38 (1989) Delhi Law Times (SN) 5. In this case also the accused appellant was convicted under Section 161, Indian Penal Code and Sections 5 (l) (d) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Court while maintaining the conviction reduced the sentence of the imprisonment of appellant to the period already undergone on the ground that the appellant has faced the agony of trial for about 18 years now. ( 7 ) THE learned Amicus Curiae placed reliance on the judgment. In the case of B. G. Goswami v. Delhi Administration, decided by the Supreme Court reported in 1973 SCC (Crl.) 796. The Court observed as under : "now the question of sentence is always a difficult question, requiring as it does, proper adjustment and balancing of various considerations which weigh with a judicial mind in determining its appropriate quantum in a given case. The main purpose of the sentence broadly stated is that the accused must realise that he has committed an act which is not only harmful to the society of which he forms an integral part but is also harmful to his own future, both as an individual and as a member of the society. The main purpose of the sentence broadly stated is that the accused must realise that he has committed an act which is not only harmful to the society of which he forms an integral part but is also harmful to his own future, both as an individual and as a member of the society. Punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as also by preventing the guilty party from repeating the offence; it is also designed to reform the offender and reclaim him as a law abiding citizen for the good of the society as a whole. Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial thinking while determining the question. In modem civilised societies, however, reformatory aspect is being given somewhat greater importance. Too lenient as well as too harsh sentence both loss their efficaciousness. One does not deter and the other may frustrate thereby making the offender a hardened criminal. In the present case, after weighing the considerations already noticed by us and the fact that to send the appellant back to jail now after seven years of the agony and harassment of these proceedings when he is also going to lose his job and has to earn a living for himself and for his family members and for those dependent on him, we feel that it would meet the ends of justice if we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone but increase the sentence of fine from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 400/ -. Period of imprisonment in case of default will remain the same. " ( 8 ) THIS case has been followed in a number of subsequent judgments by the Supreme Court and various other Courts. In Ramesh Kumar Gupta v. State of M. P. , reported in (1995) 5 SCC 320 , while relying on the judgment of B. G. Goswami v. Delhi Administration (supra), the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone, in a case where the accused was convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 9 ) IN the instant case, the incident had taken place in 1976. The basic facts regarding the; delay are quite akin to the facts of aforesaid cases. The appellant had undergone some part of the sentence and faced the trauma of criminal proceedings and prosecution for 24 years. ( 9 ) IN the instant case, the incident had taken place in 1976. The basic facts regarding the; delay are quite akin to the facts of aforesaid cases. The appellant had undergone some part of the sentence and faced the trauma of criminal proceedings and prosecution for 24 years. ( 10 ) ON careful analysis of the evidence on record leads to the conclusion that the appellant, Munna is clearly guilty for the offence under Sections 363 and 366, Indian Penal Code. The learned AS) has rightly convicted the appellant under Sections 363 and 366, Indian Penal Code. No interference is called for as far as conviction of the appellant is concerned. However, the appellant has been facing trial and prosecution for more than 24 years. He has already undergone part of the sentence, therefore, on consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances of this case, in my considered opinion the ends of justice shall be met by upholding the conviction of the appellant. However, the sentence of imprisonment of the appellant, Munna is reduced to the period already undergone. ( 11 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.