SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mahmood & Anr. vs State on 21 May, 2014

Delhi High Court Mahmood & Anr. vs State on 21 May, 2014Author: S. P. Garg

$-13

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

DECIDED ON : 21st MAY, 2014

+ CRL.A.No. 369/2000

MAHMOOD & ANR. ….. Appellants Through : Mr.Manoj Bhandari, Advocate.

VERSUS

STATE ….. Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court)

1. Mahmood (A-1) and Sayed Ahmed (A-2) impugn their conviction under Sections 498A/34 IPC by a judgment dated 22.04.2000 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 29/95 arising out of FIR No. 199/94 PS Sadar Bazar. By an order dated 01.05.2000, they were sentenced to undergo RI for two years with fine ` 5,000/- each.

2. The appellants were charge-sheeted for committing offences under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC. On 11.08.1994, Daily Diary (DD) No.12A was recorded regarding the incident and the investigation was Crl.A.No. 369/2000 Page 1 of 4 assigned to ASI Doodh Nath. He went to RML Hospital and obtained MLC of the victim Saira who was unfit to make statement. The Investigating Officer informed SDM, Kotwali, who recorded her statement on 12.08.1994. Subsequently, she succumbed to the injuries. The prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove the case. In 313 statements, the appellants pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in their conviction under Sections 498A/34 IPC. They were acquitted of the charge under Section 304B IPC. It is pertinent to mention that State did not challenge their acquittal for the said offence.

3. During the course of arguments on appeal, the appellants settled the dispute with Mohd.Suleman and Fatma, parents of the deceased Saira. Compromise deed dated 05.02.2014 was placed on record. The deceased’s parents appeared before the Court and informed that the said settlement has arrived at with the appellants with their free consent without any fear or pressure. The daughters of the deceased who were brought up by the appellants also appeared before the Court and spoke in favour of the settlement. The Investigating Officer present in the Court has verified the settlement arrived at between the parties. The appellants have given up challenge to the findings recorded under Sections 498A/34 IPC and have prayed either to release the appellants on probation or for Crl.A.No. 369/2000 Page 2 of 4 the period already undergone by them. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has no objection to modify the sentence order in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

4. The appellants were acquitted of the main charge under Section 304B IPC and were convicted under Sections 498A/34 IPC only. The marriage of the deceased took place in 1989. Three children namely Farahnaaz (23 years), Mehjaminaz (21 years) and Mehfooj (20 years) were born out of this wedlock. The incident in which Saira died an unfortunate death took place in 1994. The appellants have suffered agony / ordeal of trial for about 20 years. They also remained in custody for seven days. A-2 is aged about 87 years and is suffering from various ailments. It has come on record that the children were brought up by the appellants in the matrimonial home. They have also no grievance against the appellants and prayed to dispose of the appeal modifying the sentence order. Parents of the deceased have also stated that the settlement has been arrived to maintain harmonious relations with the appellants. Considering all these mitigating circumstances, no useful purpose will be served to put the appellants to jail.

5. Since the appellants have opted not to challenge the findings of the Trial Court under Section 498A/34 IPC, maintaining their Crl.A.No. 369/2000 Page 3 of 4 conviction under that Section, the sentence order is modified and the period already spent by the appellants in custody is taken as the substantive sentence.

6. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the order. A copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent jail for information. (S.P.GARG)

JUDGE

MAY 21, 2014 / tr

Crl.A.No. 369/2000 Page 4 of 4

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation