Telangana High Court
Pachipala Kondal Yedukondalu vs The State Of A.P., on 16 December, 2021Bench: A.Rajasheker Reddy, Chillakur Sumalatha
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
AND
HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.361 of 2014
JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha)
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.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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
ARR, J & Dr.CSL, J
2 Crl.A.No.361 of 2014
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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
ARR, J & Dr.CSL, J
3 Crl.A.No.361 of 2014
8. 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.
9. 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
ARR, J & Dr.CSL, J
4 Crl.A.No.361 of 2014
under Section 305 I.P.C. and therefore, at least now, the sentence has
to be reduced.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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
ARR, J & Dr.CSL, J
5 Crl.A.No.361 of 2014
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.
13. 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
ARR, J & Dr.CSL, J
6 Crl.A.No.361 of 2014
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.”
14. 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
ARR, J & Dr.CSL, J
7 Crl.A.No.361 of 2014
considers it desirable to look into the aspect of sentencing vis-a-vis
proportionality.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the
appellant has already served sentence for 8 years excluding the period
of remission granted till now.
18. 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
ARR, J & Dr.CSL, J
8 Crl.A.No.361 of 2014
preventive approach which seeks to eliminate those conditions from
the society which were responsible for commission of the crime.
19. 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
20. 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.
21. 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
ARR, J & Dr.CSL, J
9 Crl.A.No.361 of 2014
the opinion that the punishment imposed on the appellant/accused by
the trial Court is graver in nature and it requires redetermination.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. Resultantly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. The
sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant/accused by the
ARR, J & Dr.CSL, J
10 Crl.A.No.361 of 2014
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.
25. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
___________________________________
Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
.12.2021
dr
Comments