REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1201 OF 2007
Sudarshan Kumar ..Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana ..Respondent
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
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.
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 the prosecution Sudesh was married to the appellant in
April/May, 1980 but she could not conceive. The appellant
had 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 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.
-2-
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.
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 a child.
It is natural that everyone wants children, but if a
woman 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. 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 child. At any event, that is no justification for
tormenting or beating her, and this reveals a feudal,
backward 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
-3-
the learned 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 the sentence already undergone by him.
.........................J.
[MARKANDEY KATJU]
NEW DELHI; .........................J.
JULY 28, 2011 [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]
