Sudarshan Kumar vs State Of Haryana

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]