Pachipala Kondal Yedukondalu vs State Of A.P.

Challenge in this appeal is the judgment of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, dated 31.01.2014 in Sessions Case No.681 of 2012 which stood pending on the file of the said Court.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the appellant/accused started his submission with a request to enlarge the appellant on bail pending appeal and during the course of submission, he started arguing at length with regard to merits of the appeal. Then, on a query by this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is in jail since considerable time and therefore, the appeal itself may be taken up for disposal.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor expressed willingness to submit her contentions in the appeal itself and thus, both advanced their arguments touching the merits of case. Thus, the appeal was finally heard by us and reserved for disposal.

The learned counsel for the appellant submitting that the appellant is not responsible for the alleged suicide by the deceased, contended that the trial Court wrongly convicted the appellant though the requirement under Section 107 I.P.C. regarding abetment was not fulfilled. However, at the next stretch, the learned counsel stated that the main grievance is in respect of the quantum of sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the trial Court and that, as the quantum of sentence is disproportionate to the offence, if any, committed by the appellant, this Court has to give anxious consideration in that regard and do justice.

Responding to the said point, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the offence committed by the appellant/accused is punishable under Section 305 I.P.C. and having regard to the evidence produced which established that he has committed the offence charged, he was punished and the trial Court has rightly sentenced the appellant/accused to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also fairly stated that in case, the sentence awarded by the trial Court appears disproportionate, this Court may award sentence which appears to be justifiable and proportionate to the crime committed by the appellant.

Having regard to the aforesaid submission, the short point that falls for consideration in this appeal is Whether the punishment imposed upon the appellant/accused by the trial Court is proportionate to the gravity of the offence charged and established by the prosecution through the evidence adduced.

The matrix of the case, as could be culled out through the charge sheet, is that the daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2 by name Kumbam Rupa @ Anitha (hereinafter be referred as "the deceased" for brevity) was pursuing I year B.Tech at Bharath Engineering (Women's) College, Mangalpally, Hyderabad and she was residing with her brother at Hyderabad in a room. The appellant/accused was studying II year B.Tech at Scient Engineering College, Ibrahimpatnam during that time. The appellant was following the deceased and was forcing her to love him and was also threatening her and on that, the deceased informed the matter to her parents and on that, the parents of the deceased informed the matter to the parents of the appellant. While so, on 26.6.2011, while the deceased was at her house, the appellant trespassed into the house, threatened the deceased with dire consequences and being afraid of the warnings of the appellant, on the next day i.e. on 27.6.2011, the deceased poured kerosene upon herself and set ablaze. On noticing the same, her parents extinguished the flames and shifted her to hospital where she succumbed to burn injuries while undergoing treatment.

Submitting his contentions with regard to merits of the case as well as the quantum of sentence, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution exaggerated its story and added few facts which never occurred and thereby, aggravated the scene and believing the same, the trial Court sentenced the appellant with imprisonment for life and indeed, the appellant ought to have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. but not  under Section 305 I.P.C. and therefore, at least now, the sentence has to be reduced.

Section 305 I.P.C. deals with abetment of suicide of child i.e., a person under 18 years of age or an insane person or delirious person or an idiot or any person in a state of intoxication and envisages that such a person who abets the suicide of a person falling under any of the categories enumerated therein shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 306 I.P.C. mandates the punishment for abetment of suicide of any person who does not fall under any category of the persons enumerated under Section 305 I.P.C. It lays down that such a person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may exceed ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Thus, the offence under Section 305 I.P.C. is an aggravated one when compared to the offence under Section 306 I.P.C.

In the case on hand, the appellant was charged for the offence punishable under Section 305 I.P.C. and was convicted for the same on the ground that the deceased was a minor as on the date of the incident. The prosecution emerged successful in establishing the same. The date of incident is 27.6.2011. As per Ex.P-13, which is the School Certificate pertaining to the deceased, her date of birth is 06.8.1993. The genuineness of the said document is not in dispute. Thus, the deceased was aged 17 years 10 months and 21 days as on the date of the incident. Thus, she can undoubtedly be termed as a person below the age of 18 years and abetment of such a person to commit suicide squarely falls under the purview of Section 305 I.P.C. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant ought to have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. is unsustainable. However, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the said factor can be taken into consideration while deciding the proportionality of sentence. As observed above, within a period of one month ten days, the deceased would have attained the age of 18 years and if, after the said period, the incident might have occurred, then it would be a case falling within the purview of Section 306 I.P.C.

Coming to the other aspects of the case, the prosecution tried to establish that the deceased narrated the harassment of the appellant to her parents and on that, the parents of the deceased along with others went to the house of the appellant and informed the matter to the parents of the appellant and the parents of the appellant gave assurance that the appellant will not threaten the deceased thereafter. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, P.W-5 and P.W-7 in that regard was given due weight by the trial Court. However, the trial Court mainly relied upon the dying declaration of the deceased which is marked as Ex.P-8. But, when the contents of Ex.P-8 are given a meticulous perusal, we find a clear mention by the deceased that she did not inform her parents about the behaviour of the appellant as he threatened her. The narration of the deceased and the answer she has given to the question put by the learned Magistrate, who recorded the dying declaration, as to how she received injuries is as under:

"I am a B.Tech student. I completed I year B.Tech in Bharathi Institute of Technology and Science for Women which is in Mangalapally. One boy by name P.Yedukondalu who is also studying B.Tech 2nd year is from our village, has been harassing me to talk to him. Fed up with his behavior, I myself poured kerosene and burnt in my house today early morning at 7 am. I did not inform my parents as he threatened me not to tell anyone or else he will kill me."

Therefore, when the deceased has not informed anything to her parents, P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased, along with others approaching the house of the appellant and informing his parents about the matter becomes highly doubtful. The trial Court totally believed the genuineness of the dying declaration of the deceased and passed the judgment of conviction. Such being the case, the statement of the deceased that she did not inform her parents about the threatening of the appellant ought to have been believed and acted upon. However, the trial Court did not do so. Thus, by all the evidence that is on record, it is clear that for the death of the deceased, by committing suicide, the appellant is responsible, however, not in such a grave situation as indicated through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Thus, considering this aspect coupled with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the career of the appellant is already ruined and he had undergone the sentence for a considerable period and at least, if he is now released, he would be helpful to his parents and as a reformed person, he may lead a normal life, this Court considers it desirable to look into the aspect of sentencing vis-a-vis proportionality.

The object of the Criminal Law system in India is to reform the criminal and the procedure adopted is a reformative one and not retributive.

As brought on record, the appellant was studying II year B.Tech by the date of the incident. It is also brought on record that the appellant was aged around 21 years by the date of the incident. The said age is considered to be the right age to gain sufficient knowledge and experience for settlement in life and to serve the society as a responsible citizen. However, in the case on hand, only because of infatuation and craze towards the deceased, the appellant lost his entire career and future prospectus.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the appellant has already served sentence for 8 years excluding the period of remission granted till now.

In the matter of punishment for the offence committed by a person, there are many approaches to the problem. On commission of the crime, three types of theories may generate; the first is the traditional form of universal nature, which is termed as 'punitive approach' and it regards the criminal as notoriously dangerous and requires inflicting severe punishment to protect the society from his criminal assaults; the second is therapeutic approach which regards the criminal as a sick person requiring treatment; and the third is preventive approach which seeks to eliminate those conditions from the society which were responsible for commission of the crime.

Wide discretion is given by the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in the aspect of inflicting appropriate punishment to the wrong doers who are otherwise termed as criminals. Chapter III of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which deals with punishment starts from Section 53 and extends up to Section 75. The five types of punishments that are provided under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, are

(1) Death

(2) Imprisonment for life

(3) Imprisonment either rigorous or simple

(4) Forfeiture of property

(5) Fine

The only mandate of law is that the punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of offence committed and the ultimate goal is to protect the civilized society from the crime. Of course, the reformation of a criminal and paving way to his normal pace of life is also the goal that is required to be achieved through administration of justice.

Thus, having regard to the nature of the crime committed by the appellant/accused in this case and further, taking into consideration his age, the gravity of the offence committed by him and the length of sentenced served by him till now, this Court considers that modification of the sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the trial Court is required. However, more than the above facts, we are of the opinion that the punishment imposed on the appellant/accused by the trial Court is graver in nature and it requires redetermination.

Time and again, through catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that determination and awarding of penal sentence which commensurates with the gravity of offence is a judicial obligation. It also envisages that sentencing policy should always be correctional and reformative. There cannot be a straight jacket formula in awarding sentence. Each case has to be dealt in accordance with the factual position basing on the evidence produced. Having regard to the facts as enumerated and discussed above, we are of the view that the sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the trial Court is somewhat disproportionate i.e., to say that the imprisonment for life does not commensurate with the gravity of offence committed by him.

The prosecution emerged successful in establishing the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt before the trial Court. However, the punishment imposed upon him, as earlier stated, is on a higher side. Hence, we are of the considered view that having regard to the nature of the offence committed by the appellant, sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 8 years, with fine as imposed by the trial Court, is justifiable. Therefore, while confirming the judgment of the trial Court in all other aspects, we consider it desirable to reduce the sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the trial Court.

Resultantly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. The sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant/accused by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda in Sessions Case No.681 of 2012 is thus modified. The appellant is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 8 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The sentence already undergone by him shall be given set off.

Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.