Cr.A. No. 356 of 1993 27.2.2008 Present: Shri P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General, for the appellante – State. S/Shri Sunil Chauhan and Chaman Negi, Advocates, vice Mr. Anup Chitkara, Advocate, with convict Jagdish Raj Khatta, in person. We have heard the convict on the question of quantum of sentence. We have also considered the submissions made by his counsel. The plea taken by the convict is that he has minor children from the second wife to look-after and maintain and that if he is sent to jail, the career of his minor children will be ruined. Learned counsel for the convict, relying upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devi Ram vs. State of Haryana, [[2003 SCC (Cri) 1688 ] has stated that since the matter is very old, the incident having taken place in the year 1990, or say about eighteen years back, and the convict is 53 years old, leniency be shown, while passing sentence. The evidence on record shows that the convict was holding high post in a Government department at the relevant time. The deceased was an educated woman, but from a poor family. She was one of the seven daughters of a school teacher. Taking undue advantage of the poor financial status of the parents of the deceased, the convict had been not only mocking at her and subjecting her to humiliation, in the presence of her parents and other relatives on parental side, but also giving beatings to her in the presence of his own subordinates. Looking to all these facts and circumstances, as also the fact that the respondent is not an old man as was the case in the precedent relied upon by the -2- learned counsel, we are of the view that the precedent is not attracted to the case in hand. Taking an overall view of the facts and the circumstances of the case as also the fact that the convict has minor children from his second wife to look-after and maintain, we feel that the ends of justice would be met in case he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months, in respect of offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months, in respect of offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. We order accordingly. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Copy of the judgment be given to the convict free of cost. ( Surjit Singh ) Judge ( Surinder Singh ) February 27, 2008 (BC) Judge