Skip to content


Lakhan Singh Vs. State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 67 of 1983
Judge
Reported in25(1984)DLT159
ActsIndian Penal code, 1860 - Sections 366
AppellantLakhan Singh
RespondentState
Advocates: S.P. Mahajan,; Archana Gupta,; Harish Gulati and;
Excerpt:
.....she reached back delhi in the early hours of 8th september, 1982. from the bus stop she went to railway station delhi main and bought a ticket for bombay. at that time the convict appellant enquired from her in a friendly manner as to from where she had come to delhi and where she was intending to go, whereupon the prosecutrix told him that she was unsuccessful in searching her husband in chandigarh and was thus returning to bombay. (4) the appellant is admittedly a poor coolie working at railway station and hardly able to make his both ends meet. the proposal was accompanied with an assurance of keeping her happy and giving her a comfortable married life. l,000.00 upon the appellant looks harsh and excessive and in my view the ends of justice would be best served if the sentence..........she reached back delhi in the early hours of 8th september, 1982. from the bus stop she went to railway station delhi main and bought a ticket for bombay. (2) the convict appellant lakhan singh was working as a coolie at railway station delhi main and the prosecutrix hired him as such and he offered to arrange accommodation for her in the train if she could pay him rs. 10.00 she paid the demanded money to the appellant who showed her a seat. at that time the convict appellant enquired from her in a friendly manner as to from where she had come to delhi and where she was intending to go, whereupon the prosecutrix told him that she was unsuccessful in searching her husband in chandigarh and was thus returning to bombay. it was at that point of time that the appellant misrepresented to.....
Judgment:

Jagdish Chandra, J.

(1) Lakhan Singh son of Ved Ram Saini, resident of Village Jamalpur, police station Bainya Ther, District Moradabad (UP) has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 10th January, 1983 of Shri S.M. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby the learned trial court held him guilty under Section 366 Indian Penal Code and convicted him there under as also against the order of sentence of the same date whereby he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and also to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 1,000.00 and in default whereof he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 366 IPC. Briefly stated the case of the production is that the prosecutrix Smt. Meena w/o Tilak Raj Sharma aged about 20 years was working as a maid servant at Bombay with the family of one Shri S.P. Bajaj. Her husband went to his parents in Chandigarh. The prosecutrix left Bombay on 5th September, 1982 and reached Chandigarh on the evening of 7th September, 1982 but she could not search her husband there despite her best efforts and consequently she reached back Delhi in the early hours of 8th September, 1982. From the bus stop she went to railway station Delhi Main and bought a ticket for Bombay.

(2) The convict appellant Lakhan Singh was working as a Coolie at Railway Station Delhi Main and the prosecutrix hired him as such and he offered to arrange accommodation for her in the train if she could pay him Rs. 10.00 She paid the demanded money to the appellant who showed her a seat. At that time the convict appellant enquired from her in a friendly manner as to from where she had come to Delhi and where she was intending to go, whereupon the prosecutrix told him that she was unsuccessful in searching her husband in Chandigarh and was thus returning to Bombay. It was at that point of time that the appellant misrepresented to her that he knew her husband and that he could take her to him as he was in village Jamalpur, District Moradabad from which village the appellant hailed. He then purchased two tickets for Rajaka Sahaspur Railway station. It was the railway station nearest to village Jamalpur, and both of them boarded a train at about 7 Am on 8th September, 1982. On reaching the aforesaid railway station the appellant took the prosecutrix to village Jamalpur in a rickshaw and confined her in a room and it was there that he disclosed to her husband was not there and that she had to marry him and he promised her a comfortable married life, but this proposal of the appellant was declined by her and she pleaded with him to let her go to her husband. In the night the brother and the sister-in-law of the appellant came to the house where the prosecutrix was confined and the prosecutrix narrated to them her aforesaid story whereupon they reprimanded the accused and assured her not to worry. The villagers who have also assembled there and heard the tale of the prosecutrix also reprimanded the appellant and assured the prosecutrix not to worry. On the the following day i. e. on 9th September, 1982 two police men reached village Jamalpur and she was rescued by them with the help of village Pradhan and other villagers. She and the appellant were both taken to police station Bainya Ther where the prosecutrix lodged her report Ext. Public Witness 1/A.

(3) During the course of arguments Mrs. Swam Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant conceded the validity of order of conviction under appeal but she pointed out that the appellant had been in jail since 10th September, 1982 and was never granted bail in this case and so the sentence already undergone by him would be adequate, justifiable and sufficient punishment for this offence and that he should now be let off with that much punishment. The order of conviction looking correct is maintained.

(4) The appellant is admittedly a poor Coolie working at railway station and hardly able to make his both ends meet. He is a young man aged about 24 years and is unmarried. Further more the perusal of the records of the case nowhere show that he in any manner molested or misbehaved with the person of the prosecutrix at any point of time which is a circumstance quite extenuating and favoring the appellant and had been content only with giving her a proposal for marrying him which the prosecutrix, however, declined. The proposal was accompanied with an assurance of keeping her happy and giving her a comfortable married life. Under these circumstances the sentence of five years and the imposition of fine in thesumofRs.l,000.00 upon the appellant looks harsh and excessive and in my view the ends of justice would be best served if the sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is reduced to the one already undergone in as much as he has been in jail since 10th September, 1982 without grant of bail and I order accordingly. The appeal is party allowed as indicated above. If the appellant is not wanted in any other case he be released forthwith. The records of the learned trial court be returned immediately.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //