Bachubhai Khimjibhai Damor vs The State of Gujarat and 1

Honorable Mr. Justice Jayant Patel

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 214/2004, whereby,

the original accused no. 1 ( hereinafter referred to as ""A-1"") has been convicted for the offence under sec. 498-A of IPC and sentence has been

imposed for three years R/I with fine of Rs. 1000/- and A-1 has also been convicted for the offence u/s 306 of IPC and sentence has been

imposed for 10 years R/I with fine of Rs. 5000/-. The learned Sessions Judge has also convicted original accused no. 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred

to as ""A-2 & A-3"") for the offence u/s 498-A read with section 114 of IPC and sentence has been imposed for 2 years R/I with fine of Rs. 1000/-

, and further, A-2 and A-3 are also convicted for the offence under sec. 306 of IPC read with section 114 of IPC and sentence has been imposed

for five years R/I with fine of Rs. 5000/-.

As per the prosecution case, a complaint was filed by PW-2, father of the deceased Sushilaben, stating that his daughter Sushilaben (hereinafter

referred to as ""deceased"") had married with A-1 before three years. His daughter Sushilaben used to complain about the physical as well as mental

harassment by A-1. The deceased had also complained that A-1 had illicit relation with the wife of his brother and since the deceased was

objecting the same, A-1 was used to abuse her, beat her and was giving cruel treatment. The in-laws, father-in-law of the deceased A-2, wife of

the brother of A-1 and mother-in-law A-3 were also beating and abusing the deceased. The deceased was very sentimental lady, and therefore,

she was suffering, but there was no improvement in the attitude of A-1, inspite of the same, the deceased pulled on her marriage life. Prior to 15

days of the incident, the deceased under compulsion, left her daughter at village Vagela and went to the place of son of her maternal uncle at

Mahedikheda, Rajasthan, when her in-laws and her husband had gone to Godhra for labor work. It was learnt by the complainant that since

deceased was missing her daughter, aged 1 1/2 years, upon her insistence, she was left there by the son of her maternal uncle Dinesh to her

husband''s place and on 21.12.2002, the complainant learnt that Sushilaben had expired by hanging. He had a doubt about the incident, and

therefore, complaint was filed on 23.12.2002 with Zalod Police Station.

Police investigated into the complaint and chargesheet was filed thereafter, and ultimately, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions

which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 214/2004.

The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined seven witnesses, whose details are mentioned at para-14 of the impugned

judgment. The prosecution has also produced documentary evidence of five documents, the details of which are referred to by the learned

Sessions Judge at para-4 of the impugned judgment.

The learned Sessions Judge had, thereafter, recorded the statement of the accused u/s 313 of CrPC, wherein, the accused denied the evidence

against them, and in the further statement, the accused stated that a false case is filed against them and also stated that the settlement is arrived at

between the parties on 12.7.2005, and the writing on stamp paper of Rs. 50/ was produced and the receipt of the money was also produced. The

learned Sessions Judge, thereafter, heard the prosecution and defense and found the accused guilty for the offence under sec. 498-A and 306 of

IPC. The learned Sessions Judge has, thereafter, heard the prosecution and the accused on the aspect of sentence, and ultimately imposed the

sentence as referred to hereinabove. Under the circumstances, the present appeal before this Court.

The learned counsel for the appellants has raised the only contention that even if the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge for the

alleged offence u/s 498A and 306 of IPC is maintained, on the aspects of sentence, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have taken lenient view. It

was submitted that as per the decision of the Apex Court, in a case of non-compoundable offence, for which, the Court also may not have the

jurisdiction for compounding of the offence, it may require for the Court to examine the aspects of conviction in accordance with law. But in the

submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, if the settlement is made between the parties, it will be one of the mitigating circumstances for

imposition of lesser punishment. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the said aspect may be taken into consideration.

In furtherance to the submission, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the settlement had come on record in the further

statement of the accused under sec. 313 of CrPC and the copy of the settlement is also the part of the paper-book, inspite of the same, maximum

sentence has been imposed for the alleged offence by the learned Sessions Judge.

It was also submitted that pending the appeal, accused no. 2 and 3 were granted bail and A-2 has expired on 17.1.2008, therefore, appeal

would not survive for conviction and sentence qua A-2 and stand abated, but it would survive for A-1 who is husband of the deceased and A-3

who is mother-in-law of the deceased. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no direct role attributable for A-3,

who was mother-in-law, and further submitted that even if the conviction is not interfered with for A-3, she had undergone some period in jail,

therefore, the sentence imposed upon A-3 be reduced suitably as the sentence already undergone by A-3 and the interference may be made by

this Court to that extent. Learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ishwar Singh Vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh, , in the case of Amar Nath Shukla Vs. State of Uttaranchal, , in the case of Hirabhai Jhaverbhai Vs. State of Gujarat &

Ors., reported in AIR 2010 SC 232, in the case of Murugesan and Others Vs. Ganapathy Velar, and in the case of Jetha Ram and Others Vs.

State of Rajasthan, . It was submitted that in all such cases, the Hon''ble Apex Court, in view of the settlement arrived at between both the sides,

has reduced the sentence by the period of the sentence already undergone and the accused/convict were released. She submitted that same fact

situation are there in the present case, and therefore, this Court may consider the case.

Learned APP Mr. K.L. Pandya, while supporting the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge submitted that the settlement has been

rightly ignored by the learned Sessions Judge for the purpose of conviction and the sentence imposed is also rightly imposed by the learned

Sessions Judge. It submitted that merely because the settlement is entered into at a later point of time, may not be treated as valid ground for

escaping from the guilt of the alleged offence nor may be considered as a valid ground for reduction of the sentence, and therefore, it was

submitted that the appeal be dismissed.

We may mention that since the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge of all the accused is not under challenge, and therefore, we

need not further examine the said aspect. However, on the aspect of appropriate sentence in view of the settlement, reference to certain case laws

would be relevant. In the case of Jetha Ram and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, , the Apex Court in a case where the offence was u/s 326 read

with section 34 of IPC, has observed in para-4, thus:

Before this Court the parties have filed a compromise petition. The offence u/s 326 IPC is not compoundable, as such it is not possible to

record the compromise, but it is well settled that though compromise cannot be recorded for a noncompoundable offence, but the effect of

compromise can be taken into consideration while awarding the sentence. The appellants have remained in custody for a period of about five

months. In our view, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded against the appellants is reduced to the period

already undergone.

In the case of Ishwar Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, , it was a case for the offence u/s 307 IPC, and when the settlement was pressed in

service, it was observed by the Apex Court in paras : 12 to 15, thus:

Now, it cannot be gainsaid that an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC is not a compoundable offence. Section 320 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 expressly states that no offence shall be compounded if it is not compoundable under the Code. At the same time, however,

while dealing with such matters, this court may take into account a relevant and important consideration about compromise between the parties for

the purpose of reduction of sentence.

In Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, Murugesan vs. Ganapathy Velar and Ishwarlal v. State of M.P., this Court, while taking into account the

fact of compromise between the parties, reduced sentence imposed on the appellant-accused to already undergone, though the offences were not

compoundable. But it was also stated that in Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan such offence was ordered to be compounded.

In our considered opinion, it would not be appropriate to order compounding of an offence not compoundable under the Code ignoring and

keeping aside statutory provisions. In our judgment, however, limited submission of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves consideration

that while imposing substantive sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which the Court may

keep in mind.

In the instant case, the incident took place before more than fifteen years; the parties are residing in one and the same village and they are also

relatives. The appellant was about 20 years of age at the time of commission of crime. It was his first offence. After conviction, the petitioner was

taken into custody. During the pendency of appeal before the High Court, he was enlarged on bail but, after the decision of the High Court, he

again surrendered and is in jail at present. Though he had applied for bail, the prayer was not granted and he was not released on bail. Considering

the totality of facts and circumstances, in our opinion, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant

(Accused 1) is reduced to the period already undergone.

Thereafter, the Apex Court keeping in view that the incident took place before more than 15 years and the parties were residing in the same

village and they were also relatives and it was first offence, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.

In the case of Amar Nath Shukla Vs. State of Uttaranchal, , it was for the alleged offence under sec. 436 of IPC. The Apex Court, at paras 7

to 10, observed, thus:

It is brought to our notice that during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court complainant Sita Ram died in the year 2005.That because of

initiation of criminal case against the appellant there were some ill feelings between the appellant and the widow of the complainant - Malti Devi

aged 61 years. In order to live in peace and tranquility the appellant and Malti Devi entered into a compromise on the intervention of local elders

hereunder an amount of Rs. 1 lakh was given by the appellant to the widow as a solatium. That ever since the compromise, parties are living in

peace and maintaining very cordial relations with each other.

The wife of deceased Sita Ram filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 12467 of 2009 to implead herself as party-respondent in this appeal in

which the facts stated above are depicted for consideration of this Court. The learned counsel submitted that in view of the subsequent

developments the sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced to that of the sentence already undergone.

Be that as it may, we cannot compound the offence on the basis of the said compromise inasmuch as the offence punishable under Sec. 436

IPC is non-compoundable nor can we direct the courts below to compound the offence based on the compromise.

It is evident from the record that the appellant is a young married man having small kids and he is the only earning member of his family. The

incident is of the year 1989. He was in jail for a period of more than seven months. Considering the nature of allegations leveled against the

appellant and considering the period of sentence already undergone and the subsequent developments referred to hereinabove, we are of the

considered opinion that interest of justice would be met by maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Sec. 436 IPC and reducing the

sentence to that of the period already undergone by him. He shall be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

In the case of Murugesan and Others Vs. Ganapathy Velar, , it was a case for the alleged offence under sec. 323, 343, 355 and 365 of IPC.

When the settlement was pressed into service, the Hon''ble Apex Court, at para-2 observed, thus:

Mr. Sivasubramaniam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the parties have since compromised and have resolved

all their differences and are now having cordial relations. This position is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for the opposite side. We,

therefore, while maintaining conviction of the appellants under Sections 323, 343, 355 and 365 IPC, reduce the substantive sentence to the period

already undergone by them, but, maintain the sentence of fine and imprisonment in default of payment of fine. We, however, direct that out of the

fine paid, Rs. 25,000/- shall be paid to each of the two injured persons.

The aforesaid shows that in a case of settlement entered into between the parties and the relations between the parties, the nature of offence,

the effect of the settlement, are the mitigating circumstances which the Court may take into consideration for the purpose of reduction of the

sentence. But there is no hard and fast or absolute proposition for the exercise of powers in a particular manner by putting any arithmetic

calculation for the reduction of the sentence. Suffice it to state that it may vary from facts to facts for the purpose of exercising the discretion by the

Court, but it unequivocally state that if an offence is non-compoundable, which cannot be compounded with the permission of the Court and

entering into settlement is not a valid ground for finding conviction if otherwise a case is made out for commission of offence and proved in

accordance with law. It has only relevance on the aspect of sentence and while imposing the sentence, as observed earlier, the mitigating

circumstance are required to be considered and thereafter the judicial discretion is to be exercised.

If the facts of the present case are examined in light of the aforesaid legal position, it was a case where the offences proved were under sec.

498-A and 306 of IPC. It is true that the deceased was wife of A-1 and therefore, they were family members, but the aspects of cruelty meted

with by the deceased and the effect thereof on the society cannot be ignored. At the same time, the aspect of having young child which is taken

care by the father of A-1 as per the settlement, is also required to be taken into consideration. The role of the husband A-1 for the alleged offence

is much larger in comparison to A-2 and A-3 being in-laws. In any case, A-2 has expired, but A-3 mother-in-law of the deceased still survives

and the appeal stand for her. It is a matter of fact that the settlement was arrived at between the parties and the same also came on record when

the further statement of the accused were recorded under sec. 313 of CrPC, and the amount, as agreed by the said settlement, is also paid.

Under the circumstances, we find that the appropriate sentence for the offence u/s 498-A would be two years R/I, as against three years R/I,

as imposed by the learned Sessions Judge and sentence for the offence u/s 306 of IPC, the appropriate sentence would be seven years R/i as

against 10 years R/I, as imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. So far as fine imposed by the learned Sessions Judge upon A-1 is concerned, no

interference is called for.

The appeal, in any case, would not survive and shall stand abated for A-2, and hence, no further order would be required since he has

expired. However, for the sentence imposed upon A-3 is concerned, considering the facts and circumstances, we find that it would be appropriate

to impose sentence upon A-3 the period of sentence already undergone, as against two years R/I and five years R/I, as imposed by the learned

Sessions Judge. However, on the aspects of fine, no interference is called for, but we observe that the fine shall be paid by the A-3 within three

weeks, failing which, the sentence for default in payment of fine shall operate.

In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, the judgment and order dated 29.11.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge

& Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Dahod in Sessions Case No. 214/2004 for conviction of A-1 and A-3 is maintained, but the sentence

imposed upon A-1 for the offence u/s 498-A of IPC shall be 2 years R/I with fine in place of 3 years R/I as imposed by the learned Addl.

Sessions Judge and the sentence imposed upon A-1 for the offence u/s 306 of IPC shall be 7 years R/I with fine in place of 10 years R/I as

imposed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. It is further observed that sentence imposed upon A-3 for the offence u/s 498-A and 306 of IPC is

reduced to the extent of the sentence already undergone by A-3 in jail with fine and default sentence, as imposed by the learned Sessions Judge,

with a further clarification that if the fine is paid within three weeks, the default sentence shall not operate. The appeal is partly allowed to the

aforesaid extent qua A-1 and A-3 and appeal shall stand abated qua A-2.