IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE. Judgment reserved on 25th November, 2008

Transcription

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE Judgment reserved on 25th November, 2008 Judgment pronounced on 16th December, 2008 Crl.Appeal No. 427/1999 Parvati... Appellant Through: Mr.A.K.Singh with Mr.S.R. Raghav, Mr.s.k.Singh, Mr.Vimal Dubey and Mr.K.S.Goswami, Advocates. versus State... Respondents Through: Mr. Amit Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. SUNIL GAUR, J. 1. Parvati is the mother-in-law of the deceased. In this appeal, she is challenging her conviction and sentence awarded to her for subjecting her daughter-in-law Poonam to cruelty and for abetting her suicide on 2nd day of May, The facts of this case, as they emerge from the record of this case, are as under:- On 2nd May, 1995, Poonam (since deceased) was married with Budh Ram who happens to be the son of appellant/accused Parvati. Ironically on the first anniversary of her marriage, Poonam was brought in unconscious condition to the SDN Hospital by her mother-in-law i.e. appellant/accused at 7.30 pm with alleged history of consuming some unknown chemical substance. Unfortunately, she never regained her consciousness and had expired on 7th May, 1996 in G.T.B. Hospital. Even after the post-mortem, no opinion regarding the cause of her death was given as her viscera report was awaited and even in the said report, no common poison was detected. However, information regarding this incident was received in Police Station Krishna Nagar, Delhi vide Daily Diary No.32-A and the law was set into motion. After the death of Poonam, inquest proceedings commenced and thereafter appellant alongwith her son were arrested in this case. The investigation of this case was conducted by ASI Udaivir Singh (PW-18) and SI D.C. Sharma (PW-16) and upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet in this case was filed for commission of offence under Section 304-B/498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2 3. Appellant and her son claimed trial in this case as they pleaded not guilty to the charges under Section 304-B/34 of the IPC and under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC. 4. At trial, eighteen witnesses have deposed and the material evidence is of deceaseds mother and brother i.e. Smt. Shakuntala (PW-10) and Sushil (PW-12). Vijay Singh (PW-7) and Rattan Singh (PW-8) are the uncles of the deceased. Subhash Bedi (PW-5) is an acquaintance of the family of the deceased and he claims that in his presence, the uncles of the deceased i.e. Vijay (PW-7) and Rattan Singh (PW-8) had handed over two diaries/note books Ex.PW5/A-1 and A-2 to the police which were seized vide memo Ex.PW5/B. He has deposed that these two diaries were written and maintained by the deceased and were in her handwriting. Dr. Ashikho (PW-1) has proved the MLC Ex.PW1/A of Poonam wherein he had opined that she was unfit for statement and Dr. Anil Kohli (PW-2) has proved the post-mortem report Ex.PW2/A of the deceased. Shri Amar Dass (PW-11) was the Executive Magistrate who had conducted the inquest proceedings wherein he had recorded the statement of the mother of the deceased. The initial investigation of this case was conducted by ASI Udaivir Singh (PW- 18) and SI D.C. Sharma (PW-16) is the subsequent Investigation Officer of this case who had completed the investigation of this case and had filed the charge- sheet. 5. When the appellant was questioned by the trial court, she in her statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had simply stated that she was innocent and she has been falsely implicated in this case and she did not lead any evidence in her defence. 6. After the trial, appellant was not found guilty of committing the offence of dowry death but was held guilty for abetting the suicide of Poonam and of subjecting her to cruelty. She was sentenced to Rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of rupees ten thousand for commission of offence under Section 306 and she was also awarded similar sentence for committing the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. Trial court has ordered that the above two sentences would run concurrently. However, benefit of doubt was extended to the son of the appellant who was acquitted by the trial court in this case. 7. The submissions advanced by both the sides in this appeal have been given thoughtful consideration and the evidence on record has been minutely analysed. 8. The major assault by the appellant upon the prosecution case is that the cause of death of the deceased does not stand proved in this case and the existence and production of the two diaries Ex.PW5/A-1 and A-2 is not satisfactorily proved on record and infact these two diaries have not been recovered from the house of the appellant/accused but have been planted by the family of the deceased. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon judgments reported in 2000(1) JCC (SC) 138; 2002 CAR 385 SC and AIR 1974 SC 1871 to contend that the contradictions in the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses rendered their version unreliable. Reliance has been also placed upon judgments reported in AIR 1973

3 SC 2773 and 2002 CAR 385 to contend that if two views possible, then benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. By relying upon judgment reported in AIR 1979 SC 1382, it is contended that grave suspicion cannot take place or proof. On the strength of judgments reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773 and 2003 (3) JCC 1358, it is urged that before an accused can be convicted, it must be established that he is guilty and on the basis of may be guilty, he cannot be convicted. 10. The above referred citations relied upon by the appellant reiterate the basic propositions of criminal jurisprudence which cannot be and are not being disputed. In the light of the above referred legal position, the evidence on record has been appreciated by this Court. 11. The question posed by the appellant of cause of death of the deceased not being proved on record, can be answered by referring to the MLC Ex.PW1/A of the deceased which records that some chemical smell was coming from the mouth of Poonam and it is a case of unknown chemical poisoning. Aforesaid MLC stands duly proved on record by Dr. Ashikho (PW-1), whose evidence remains unchallenged by the defence. Thus, its stands proved from the aforesaid evidence that the death of the deceased was by an unknown chemical poisoning. Although CFSL report failing to detect any common poison is on record but the same has not been proved on record. But that will not make any difference for the reason that it is of corroborative nature only and since the factum of un- natural death of Poonam being a case of unknown chemical poisoning remains unchallenged, therefore, appellant cannot be heard to say that the cause of death of Poonam in this case is not formally proved. It is pertinent to note that there is no assertion on behalf of the appellant/accused that the present case is of natural death of Poonam. Therefore, in my considered opinion, nothing material hinges on it. 12. According to the appellant, her conviction is primarily based upon the two diaries Ex.PW5/A-1 and A-2 by the trial court. This is true. However, it is required to be seen if there is an infirmity in the evidence regarding the production of these two diaries to the police. Investigating Officer PW-18 clearly states in his evidence that these two diaries were produced before him by Vijay Singh (PW-7) on 9th May, No doubt, Vijay Singh (PW-7) has resiled and to cover up, Rattan Singh (PW-8) has claimed in evidence that these two diaries were produced by him before the police. Infact Subhash Bedi (PW- 5), an acquaintance of the family of the deceased had deposed that these two diaries were produced by Rattan Singh and Vijay Singh before the police. It is matter of record that the evidence of Subhash Bedi (PW-5) was recorded prior to the recording of the evidence of Vijay Singh (PW-7). A bare perusal of the recovery memo Ex.PW5/B of these two diaries Ex.PW5/A-1 and A-2 reveals that these two diaries were produced by Vijay Singh (PW-7) and Rattan Singh (PW-8) and Subhash Bedi (PW-5) are witnesses to the production of these two diaries before the Investigating Officer. 13. The fact of Vijay Singh (PW-7) resiling, by itself may not have made much difference, but the fact of mother of the deceased changing her stand totally about handing of the diaries in question to Ratan Singh and the fact of Ratan Singh claiming to have handed over the diaries in question to the investigation, clearly shatters, not only the

4 evidence of the mother of the deceased, but also of Ratan Singh and for that matter, the evidence of the Investigating Officer alone is not sufficient to establish the fact of production of these two diaries from the house of the mother of the deceased. There is contradiction in the prosecution evidence regarding there being one diary or two diaries. If the diaries in question were recovered by the mother of the deceased, then what stopped her from producing these diaries herself before the police. All this creates a reasonable doubt about the production of these two diaries before the police. 14. Regarding the authenticity of these two diaries, there is evidence of Ratan Singh (PW-8) alone, who claims to have identified the handwriting of the deceased. There is no specimen handwriting of the deceased, with which the writing in the diaries could have been compared. It is pertinent to note that the mother of the deceased is silent in her evidence regarding her handing over the two diaries in question to Ratan Singh (PW-8) and even Sushil (PW-12) brother of the deceased has stated in his evidence that her mother had not told him regarding the diaries in question. The brother of the deceased has been confronted with his evidence regarding the diaries and it has been found that he has made improvements on this aspect. Likewise, Subhash Bedi (PW-5) has also made improvements in his evidence regarding identification of the handwriting of the deceased on the diaries and he has been duly confronted with it. Ratan Singh (PW-8) in his evidence has stated that he had seen deceaseds writing and therefore, he can say that diaries in her hand. But he does not state as to on what occasion, he had seen the deceased writing or that he had received any letter from the deceased. The Investigating Officer (PW-18) does not given any reason, as to why he had not made any efforts to obtain the admitted handwriting of the deceased. He has not even stated that the admitted handwriting of the deceased was not available. In any case, it cannot be so inferred from the evidence on record. The vital aspect of these two diaries has been dealt by the trial court by holding as under:- The two diaries are however, tell-tale. Before reading and relying them, I must confess that there are wide range of contradictions with regard to existence, custody, production of these diaries. Firstly as per the seizure memo, the diaries were supposed to have been produced by Vijay Singh. Subhash Bedi also says that. But Shakuntla and Sushil say that Rattan Singh produced them. Secondly, the I.O. says that the diaries were produced before him at 5 P.M. at the Police Post on The witnesses say that these were produced at 10 A.M. Thirdly, there are also contradictions as to whether there was one diary or two diaries. Fourthly, the diaries were not produced at the earliest opportunity and the explanation of Sushil is that his mother did not know about them. Fifthly, according to one witness, diaries were given at the time of marriage of Subhash on whereas as per other witness, the diaries were given to the mother by Poonam on the fateful day i.e One witness alleges that page 39 of diary Ex.PW-5/A1 is in the hand of accused Parvati. However, the writing on this page is similar to the writing on other pages. Sixthly, only Sushil is able to say that the diaries are in the hand of Poonam deceased whereas Shakuntla was admittedly illiterate and Rattan Singh and Subhash Bedi confess that they had never seen Poonam reading or writing. Despite these contradictions which occur because of the low intellectual and literacy level of the witnesses, the diaries themselves inspire complete confidence. They are dated and are serialwise. The expressions used and statements made are the same as should expected of a student of eighth class. However, the hand-writing is not very intelligible

5 but I have gone through these diaries with great care and caution bearing in mind the consequence which flow from there. 15. Without there being any satisfactory evidence regarding the production of these two diaries and without establishing the authenticity of these two diaries in question, the trial court has gravely erred in relying upon them to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. However, apart from the aforesaid two diaries, there is evidence of the mother and brother of the deceased as well as of Rattan Singh, uncle of the deceased which clearly proves that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment at the hands of the appellant. There may not any demand for dowry at the time of marriage but on that basis, it cannot be said that there would be no harassment of the deceased on account of bringing inadequate dowry or for bringing more dowry. There is clinching evidence of the mother of the deceased that the deceased used to complaint to her that she was being harassed by the appellant/accused for bringing more dowry. 17. Trial court has also noticed in the impugned judgment that Smt Shakuntala, mother of the deceased and Rattan Singh, uncle of the deceased have generally said in their evidence that Poonam was depressed. Perhaps, she was depressed due to her illness as referred to in the diaries Ex.PW-5/A-1 and A The cumulative effect of the evidence on record, persuades this court to hold that the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is well justified. As regards the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, the finding of the trial court as referred to above cannot be sustained. 19. In view of the foregoing narration, I hold that the conviction/sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. 20. However, the conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A of the IPC is upheld. As regards the sentence imposed upon her is concerned, it appears to be on higher side as appellant is said to be aged about sixty years and she is a widow and she is said to be suffering from old age illness. There is no minimum sentence prescribed under Section 498-A of the IPC. As per the nominal roll of the appellant, she has already undergone sentence of one year and four days in this case and has faced the trial and the appeal proceedings since the year 1996 and had mostly remained on bail in this case. In these circumstances, the substantive sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced from three years to one year i.e. the period already undergone by her. However, the sentence of fine is correspondingly enhanced to Rs.30,000/- only. She is on bail. Her bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged. Appellant is directed to deposit the enhanced fine within three weeks with the trial court, failing which, she is directed to undergo SI for three months only. Trial court to ensure compliance of this order.

6 21. Resultantly, this appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. SUNIL GAUR, J December 16, 2008 n Crl.A. No. 427/19990Page 1 1. Parvati is the mother-inlaw of the deceased. In this appeal, she is challenging her conviction and sentence awarded to her for subjecting her daughter-in-law Poonam to cruelty and for abetting her suicide on 2nd day of May, The facts of this case, as they emerge from the record of this case, are as under:- On 2nd May, 1995, Poonam (since deceased) was married with Budh Ram who happens to be the son of appellant/accused Parvati. Ironically on the first anniversary of her marriage, Poonam was brought in unconscious condition to the SDN Hospital by her mother-in-law i.e. appellant/accused at 7.30 pm with alleged history of consuming some unknown chemical substance. Unfortunately, she never regained her consciousness and had expired on 7th May, 1996 in G.T.B. Hospital. Even after the post-mortem, no opinion regarding the cause of her death was given as her viscera report was awaited and even in the said report, no common poison was detected. However, information regarding this incident was received in Police Station Krishna Nagar, Delhi vide Daily Diary No.32-A and the law was set into motion. After the death of Poonam, inquest proceedings commenced and thereafter appellant alongwith her son were arrested in this case. The investigation of this case was conducted by ASI Udaivir Singh (PW-18) and SI D.C. Sharma (PW-16) and upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet in this case was filed for commission of offence under Section 304-B/498- A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Appellant and her son claimed trial in this case as they pleaded not guilty to the charges under Section 304-B/34 of the IPC and under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC. 4. At trial, eighteen witnesses have deposed and the material evidence is of deceaseds mother and brother i.e. Smt. Shakuntala (PW-10) and Sushil (PW-12). Vijay Singh (PW-7) and Rattan Singh (PW-8) are the uncles of the deceased. Subhash Bedi (PW-5) is an acquaintance of the family of the deceased and he claims that in his presence, the uncles of the deceased i.e. Vijay (PW-7) and Rattan Singh (PW-8) had handed over two diaries/note books Ex.PW5/A-1 and A-2 to the police which were seized vide memo Ex.PW5/B. He has deposed that these two diaries were written and maintained by the deceased and were in her handwriting. Dr. Ashikho (PW-1) has proved the MLC Ex.PW1/A of Poonam wherein he had opined that she was unfit for statement and Dr. Anil Kohli (PW-2) has proved the post-mortem report Ex.PW2/A of the deceased. Shri Amar Dass (PW-11) was the Executive Magistrate who had conducted the inquest proceedings wherein he had recorded the statement of the mother of the deceased. The initial investigation of this case was conducted by ASI Udaivir Singh (PW- 18) and SI D.C. Sharma (PW-16) is the subsequent Investigation Officer of this case who had completed the investigation of this case and had filed the charge- sheet. 5. When the appellant was questioned by the trial court, she in her statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had simply stated that she was innocent and she has been falsely implicated in this case and she did not lead any evidence in her defence. 6. After the trial, appellant was not found guilty of committing the offence of dowry death but was held guilty for abetting the suicide of Poonam and of subjecting her to cruelty. She was sentenced to Rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of rupees ten thousand for commission of offence under Section 306 and she was also awarded similar sentence for committing the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. Trial court has ordered that the above two sentences would run concurrently. However, benefit of doubt was extended to the son of the appellant who was acquitted by the trial court in this case. 7.

7 The submissions advanced by both the sides in this appeal have been given thoughtful consideration and the evidence on record has been minutely analysed. 8. The major assault by the appellant upon the prosecution case is that the cause of death of the deceased does not stand proved in this case and the existence and production of the two diaries Ex.PW5/A-1 and A-2 is not satisfactorily proved on record and infact these two diaries have not been recovered from the house of the appellant/accused but have been planted by the family of the deceased. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon judgments reported in 2000(1) JCC (SC) 138; 2002 CAR 385 SC and AIR 1974 SC 1871 to contend that the contradictions in the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses rendered their version unreliable. Reliance has been also placed upon judgments reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773 and 2002 CAR 385 to contend that if two views possible, then benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. By relying upon judgment reported in AIR 1979 SC 1382, it is contended that grave suspicion cannot take place or proof. On the strength of judgments reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773 and 2003 (3) JCC 1358, it is urged that before an accused can be convicted, it must be established that he is guilty and on the basis of may be guilty, he cannot be convicted. 10. The above referred citations relied upon by the appellant reiterate the basic propositions of criminal jurisprudence which cannot be and are not being disputed. In the light of the above referred legal position, the evidence on record has been appreciated by this Court. 11. The question posed by the appellant of cause of death of the deceased not being proved on record, can be answered by referring to the MLC Ex.PW1/A of the deceased which records that some chemical smell was coming from the mouth of Poonam and it is a case of unknown chemical poisoning. Aforesaid MLC stands duly proved on record by Dr. Ashikho (PW-1), whose evidence remains unchallenged by the defence. Thus, its stands proved from the aforesaid evidence that the death of the deceased was by an unknown chemical poisoning. Although CFSL report failing to detect any common poison is on record but the same has not been proved on record. But that will not make any difference for the reason that it is of corroborative nature only and since the factum of un- natural death of Poonam being a case of unknown chemical poisoning remains unchallenged, therefore, appellant cannot be heard to say that the cause of death of Poonam in this case is not formally proved. It is pertinent to note that there is no assertion on behalf of the appellant/accused that the present case is of natural death of Poonam. Therefore, in my considered opinion, nothing material hinges on it. 12. According to the appellant, her conviction is primarily based upon the two diaries Ex.PW5/A-1 and A-2 by the trial court. This is true. However, it is required to be seen if there is an infirmity in the evidence regarding the production of these two diaries to the police. Investigating Officer PW-18 clearly states in his evidence that these two diaries were produced before him by Vijay Singh (PW-7) on 9th May, No doubt, Vijay Singh (PW-7) has resiled and to cover up, Rattan Singh (PW-8) has claimed in evidence that these two diaries were produced by him before the police. Infact Subhash Bedi (PW-5), an acquaintance of the family of the deceased had deposed that these two diaries were produced by Rattan Singh and Vijay Singh before the police. It is matter of record that the evidence of Subhash Bedi (PW-5) was recorded prior to the recording of the evidence of Vijay Singh (PW-7). A bare perusal of the recovery memo Ex.PW5/B of these two diaries Ex.PW5/A-1 and A- 2 reveals that these two diaries were produced by Vijay Singh (PW-7) and Rattan Singh

8 (PW-8) and Subhash Bedi (PW-5) are witnesses to the production of these two diaries before the Investigating Officer. 13. The fact of Vijay Singh (PW-7) resiling, by itself may not have made much difference, but the fact of mother of the deceased changing her stand totally about handing of the diaries in question to Ratan Singh and the fact of Ratan Singh claiming to have handed over the diaries in question to the investigation, clearly shatters, not only the evidence of the mother of the deceased, but also of Ratan Singh and for that matter, the evidence of the Investigating Officer alone is not sufficient to establish the fact of production of these two diaries from the house of the mother of the deceased. There is contradiction in the prosecution evidence regarding there being one diary or two diaries. If the diaries in question were recovered by the mother of the deceased, then what stopped her from producing these diaries herself before the police. All this creates a reasonable doubt about the production of these two diaries before the police. 14. Regarding the authenticity of these two diaries, there is evidence of Ratan Singh (PW-8) alone, who claims to have identified the handwriting of the deceased. There is no specimen handwriting of the deceased, with which the writing in the diaries could have been compared. It is pertinent to note that the mother of the deceased is silent in her evidence regarding her handing over the two diaries in question to Ratan Singh (PW-8) and even Sushil (PW-12) brother of the deceased has stated in his evidence that her mother had not told him regarding the diaries in question. The brother of the deceased has been confronted with his evidence regarding the diaries and it has been found that he has made improvements on this aspect. Likewise, Subhash Bedi (PW-5) has also made improvements in his evidence regarding identification of the handwriting of the deceased on the diaries and he has been duly confronted with it. Ratan Singh (PW-8) in his evidence has stated that he had seen deceaseds writing and therefore, he can say that diaries in her hand. But he does not state as to on what occasion, he had seen the deceased writing or that he had received any letter from the deceased. The Investigating Officer (PW-18) does not given any reason, as to why he had not made any efforts to obtain the admitted handwriting of the deceased. He has not even stated that the admitted handwriting of the deceased was not available. In any case, it cannot be so inferred from the evidence on record. The vital aspect of these two diaries has been dealt by the trial court by holding as under:- The two diaries are however, tell-tale. Before reading and relying them, I must confess that there are wide range of contradictions with regard to existence, custody, production of these diaries. Firstly as per the seizure memo, the diaries were supposed to have been produced by Vijay Singh. Subhash Bedi also says that. But Shakuntla and Sushil say that Rattan Singh produced them. Secondly, the I.O. says that the diaries were produced before him at 5 P.M. at the Police Post on The witnesses say that these were produced at 10 A.M. Thirdly, there are also contradictions as to whether there was one diary or two diaries. Fourthly, the diaries were not produced at the earliest opportunity and the explanation of Sushil is that his mother did not know about them. Fifthly, according to one witness, diaries were given at the time of marriage of Subhash on whereas as per other witness, the diaries were given to the mother by Poonam on the fateful day i.e One witness alleges that page 39 of diary Ex.PW-5/A1 is in the hand of accused Parvati. However, the writing on this page is similar to the writing on other pages. Sixthly, only Sushil is able to say that the diaries are

9 in the hand of Poonam deceased whereas Shakuntla was admittedly illiterate and Rattan Singh and Subhash Bedi confess that they had never seen Poonam reading or writing. Despite these contradictions which occur because of the low intellectual and literacy level of the witnesses, the diaries themselves inspire complete confidence. They are dated and are serialwise. The expressions used and statements made are the same as should expected of a student of eighth class. However, the hand-writing is not very intelligible but I have gone through these diaries with great care and caution bearing in mind the consequence which flow from there. 15. Without there being any satisfactory evidence regarding the production of these two diaries and without establishing the authenticity of these two diaries in question, the trial court has gravely erred in relying upon them to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. However, apart from the aforesaid two diaries, there is evidence of the mother and brother of the deceased as well as of Rattan Singh, uncle of the deceased which clearly proves that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment at the hands of the appellant. There may not any demand for dowry at the time of marriage but on that basis, it cannot be said that there would be no harassment of the deceased on account of bringing inadequate dowry or for bringing more dowry. There is clinching evidence of the mother of the deceased that the deceased used to complaint to her that she was being harassed by the appellant/accused for bringing more dowry. 17. Trial court has also noticed in the impugned judgment that Smt Shakuntala, mother of the deceased and Rattan Singh, uncle of the deceased have generally said in their evidence that Poonam was depressed. Perhaps, she was depressed due to her illness as referred to in the diaries Ex.PW-5/A-1 and A The cumulative effect of the evidence on record, persuades this court to hold that the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is well justified. As regards the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, the finding of the trial court as referred to above cannot be sustained. 19. In view of the foregoing narration, I hold that the conviction/sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. 20. However, the conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A of the IPC is upheld. As regards the sentence imposed upon her is concerned, it appears to be on higher side as appellant is said to be aged about sixty years and she is a widow and she is said to be suffering from old age illness. There is no minimum sentence prescribed under Section 498-A of the IPC. As per the nominal roll of the appellant, she has already undergone sentence of one year and four days in this case and has faced the trial and the appeal proceedings since the year 1996 and had mostly remained on bail in this case. In these circumstances, the substantive sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced from three years to one year i.e. the period already undergone by her. However, the sentence of fine is correspondingly enhanced to Rs.30,000/- only. She is on bail. Her bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged. Appellant is directed to deposit the enhanced fine within three weeks with the trial court, failing which, she is directed to undergo SI for three months only. Trial court to ensure compliance of this order. 21. Resultantly, this appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.

10 December 16, 2008 Sd./- SUNIL GAUR, J