Partly allowed

Smt. Durga v. State

Rajasthan HC25 Apr 2023CRLA/284/1987

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan convicted Smt. Durga under Section 498-A IPC for dowry death but reduced her sentence to the period already undergone due to the prolonged trial (39 years), citing precedents on ends of justice. Bail bonds were discharged.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period already undergone in custody; bail bonds discharged; two months' time granted to deposit fine.

Smt. Durga Vs State — Maintenance and Alimony | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/008118]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 284/1987

¶4

Smt. Durga wife of Gokulchand, resident of Sirohi, P.S. Neemkathana, District Sikar.

¶5

----Accused-Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Rajasthan.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikash Kumar Jakhar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shyam Prakash Sharma, P.P.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

¶11

Order

¶12

25/04/2023

¶13

This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 23.07.1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (for brevity, “the learned trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.25/1986 whereby, the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

¶14

Section 498-A IPC:- two years’ rigorous imprisonment and ₹1000/- fine; in default whereof, further three months rigorous imprisonment.

¶15

The relevant facts in brief are that a written report (Ex.-P-2) dated 14.09.1984 came to be lodged by Shri Girwar Narayan, uncle of the deceased-Sharda, alleging therein that his niece was murdered by the appellant and other co-accused persons with regard to demand of dowry. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellant and co-accused persons.

[2023/RJJP/008118]

[CRLA-284/1987]

(2 of 3)

Charges under Sections 306, 498-A & 201 IPC were framed against them who pleaded not guilty and demanded trial.

¶20

The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 23.07.1987 acquitted the co-accused persons from the charges levelled against them; but, convicted the appellant as stated hereinabove while acquitting her from the charges under Sections 306 & 201 IPC.

¶21

Eschewing merits of the case, learned counsel for the appellant contends that she would feel contended if while maintaining her conviction, sentence awarded is modified and reduced to the period already undergone.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer.

¶23

As per the prosecution story, the deceased-Sharda was murdered in the intervening night of 13-14 September, 1984. The appellant, an old lady aged about 84 years today as per the arrest memo (Exhibit P-12), is facing trauma of criminal trial for last about 39 years. She has already remained in custody for a period of 87 days.

¶24

Their Lordships have held in the case of Alister Anthony

¶25

Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra

¶26

MANU/SC/0015/2012MANU/SC/0015/2012 : (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B.

¶27

MANU/SC/1627/1998MANU/SC/1627/1998 : (1998) 9 SCC 678 as under:-

¶28

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

¶29

"There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence

[2023/RJJP/008118]

[CRLA-284/1987]

(3 of 3)

would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances."

¶34

Haripada Das (Supra)

¶35

"...considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone..."

¶36

In the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the aforesaid precedential law, this Court, while maintaining the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 23.07.1987, modifies and reduces the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant. However, the appellant is granted two months’ time from today to deposit the fine failing which she will have to undergo the default sentence and the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶37

Since, the appellant is on bail, her bail bail bonds are discharged. This criminal appeal is partly allowed in aforesaid terms.

¶38

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶39

Manish/153

Smt. Durga v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Durga v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhitar Lal S/O Late Shri Anandi Lal, Vs Mr. C.S. Ratna Swami

Narayan Prasad S/O Shri Laddu Lal Vs Radheshyam S/O Shri Narayan

Laddu Ram and Others Vs Kailash and Others

Abdul Sayeed Son of Late Shri Abdul Wahid Vs Mr. Khanu Khanam Budhwali

Ms Treeza Harrison Vs Sh Rajeev Swaroop and Anr.

Suo-Moto Vs Director Elementary Edu and Others