LexSUDARSHAN KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
t
[2011] 9 S.C.R. 571
SUDARSHAN KUMAR
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1201 of 2007)
JULY 28, 2011
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND CHANDAMAULI KR.
PRASAD, JJ.]
A
B
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 - Abetment to suicide -
Allegation that wife of the appellant committed suicide on the
C
ground that she was harassed, maltreated and beaten by the
appellant as she could not conceive and bear a child - On
an earlier occasion she was sent to father's house where she
stayed for one and ha/~, years but due to intervention of the
panchayat members and the promise of the appellant that he
D
would not harass her again and his request for pardon, she
came back but was again harassed and tormented and she
committed suicide - Courts below convicted and ordered
sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment - On appeal,
held: The facts disclosed that the deceased was harassed
E
and beaten because she could not bear a child - Interference
with the conviction not called for - Appellant has already
undergone five years rigorous imprisonment - Sentence is
reduced to the period already undergone.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1201 of 2007.
From the Judgment & Order dated 12.05.2006 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal
F
-{_..,
No. 71-SB of 1992.
G
Rajesh Tyagi (for Atishi Dipankar) for the Appellant.
Manjit Singh, AAG (for Naresh Bakshi) for the
Respondent.
571
H
572
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 9 S.C.R.
A
The following order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
B
This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment
and order dated 12th May, 2006 passed by the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 71-
SB of 1992.
C
The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and
hence we are not repeating the same here except wherever
necessary.
The appellant was married to one Sudesh who is said to
have committed suicide on 23rd February, 1989. According to
0 the prosecution Sudesh was married to the appellant in April/
May, 1980 but she could not conceive. The appellant rad been
maltreating and beating Sudesh and saying that if she dies, he
will be re-married. She was physically assaulted and sent to
her father's house where she stayed for one and half years but
E due to the intervention of the panchayat members and the
promise of the appellant that he would not harass her again and
his request for pardon, she came back. However, it appears
that she was again harassed and tormented and ultimately
driven to suicide.
F
The appellant was convicted by the trial Court for abetting
the suicide under Section 306 IPC, and his conviction was
upheld by the High Court and he was given sentence of seven
years rigorous imprisonment.
G
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having
carefully perused the record of the case, we are not inclined to
interfere with the conviction of the appellant and the same is
hereby confirmed. From the facts disclosed, it is evident that
Sudesh was harassed and beaten because she could not have
H a child.
- ..
SUDARSHAN KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA
573
It is natural that everyone wants children, but if a woman
A
does not have a child, that does not mean that she should be
insulted or harassed. In such a situation, the best course would
be to take medical help, and if that fails, to adopt a child.
Experience has shown that an adopted child gives as much
happiness to the adoptive parents as any natural child does.
B
Hence, we see no justification to condone such an act of
harassing or tormenting a woman just because she did not give
birth to a child. It may not be the fault of the wife that she did
not have a c'hild. At any event, that is no justification for
tormenting or beating her, and this reveals a feudal, backward c
mentality.
Accordingly, we uphold the conviction of the appellant
recorded by the courts below but keeping in view the fact that
the appellant has already undergone about five years rigorous
imprisonment out of seven years, as submitted by the learned
D
counsel for the appellant, we deem it appropriate to reduce the
'sentence to the period already undergone by him.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
· By an interim order of this Court dated 15th May, 2008,
the appellant was enlarged on bail. His bail bonds shall stand
discharged since we have reduce the period of sentence to tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.