Judgment:
Harbans Lal, J.
1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 28.1.1985 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 36/84 whereby the accused , appellant has been convicted for the offence Under Section 306 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years along with a fine of Rs. 50/- in default of payment to undergo further R.I. for 1 month.
2. Briefly stated that indictment as disclosed from the F.I.R. is that i the appellant was married to the deceased Bhateri d/o Mukanda Ram ; P.W. 4 and she committed physical and mental cruelty with her soon after her marriage by stating that she was not suitable for him and if she dies, he would be able to re-marry and as a result of this, she committed suicide by jumping into the well on the night intervening 21.6.1984 and 22.6.1984. Her father Mukanda Ram on being informed of the death of her daughter reported the matter in writing to the S.H.O., Police Station Khetadi and alleged that she was murdered by being thrown into well on the night of 21.6.1984.
3. On the basis of this report, a F.I.R. No. 80/84 (Ex.P/10) was registered and after investigation, a challan was filed against the appellant for the offence Under Section 302 I.P.C. and the case was committed to Sessions Judge for trial. The trial court after hearing the charge 1 arguments and upon perusal of the police papers, framed charge under Section 306 I.P.C. against the appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and got exhibited several documents to prove its case. In his examination Under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused once again denied the allegations against him. He did not examined any witness in his defence.
4. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the sides, passed the impugned judgment on 28.1.1985 as indicated above.
5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has filed this appeal before this Court.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and learned P.P. on behalf of the State and have also perused the entire record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has at the outset submitted that he does not challenge the finding of guilt against the appellant recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. He has simply urged that the appellant was on the date of occurrence only 19 years of age as is evident from his arrest memo Ex.P/15 and this appeal is pending since 1985. He has also submitted that during investigation and trial, he had remained in custody for over 7 months and it would not be just and proper to send him again in custody after lapse of over 16 years. Hence, it has been submitted that he may be dealt with leniently and if the Court deems proper, his sentence of fine may instead be enhanced.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the quantum of sentence is in the discretion of the Court.
9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to all the facts and circumstances of the case.
10. In my view, there is ample force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant. No useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant to jail again. Looking to his age at the time of commission of offence, he could have been dealt with under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1985 and Sections 360 and 361 Cr.P.C. but in view of the nature of offence and the age of victim, the learned trial court has declined to do so and after a lapse of over 16 years. I also do not find any cogent reason for interfering with the view taken by the learned trial Judge. However I am inclined to take lenient view in this case as regards sentence.
11. In the result the appeal is partly allowed, the conviction of the appellant for the Offence Under Section 306 I.P.C is upheld but his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of which he shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years. The appellant is allowed 3 months time to deposit fine, failing which he shall be made to serve out the modified sentence.