IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL JAIL APPEAL NO. 519/2007 Smt. Sauni Devi ……… Appellant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ………. Respondent Mr. I.P. Kohli, Amicus Curiae, for the appellant. Mr. P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder, for the State. 26th December, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This criminal jail appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.7.2007, passed by the Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in Sessions Trial No. 17/2006, State v. Jagdish Singh & Others, which ended in conviction of all the three accused persons. The said trial pertained to Crime No. 2/2006, Patwari Circle Kalimath. Out of the three accused, two accused persons Jagdish Singh and Dilbar Singh are real brothers and sons of the third accused Smt. Sauni Devi, who is also the mother of the deceased Trilok Singh. All the three accused persons were tried for the offences punishable under Section 302/201 IPC, but the learned Sessions Judge, while concluding the trial vide the impugned judgment, was of the view that Smt. Sauni Devi committed the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. All the three accused persons were found guilty of Section 201 IPC. Smt. Sauni Devi has been sentenced to undergo seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part II IPC, while each one of the accused has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 201 IPC. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2 2. The learned Amicus Curiae has apprised this Court that the other two accused convicts, namely, Jagdish Singh and Dilbar Singh, who were sentenced to undergo two years’ imprisonment, have completed their sentences and they have now been released from the gaol, while Smt. Sauni Devi, who is 62 years old lady, is still under incarceration and she is serving the sentence ever since her arrest on 31.8.2006. It has been apprised to this Court that Smt. Sauni Devi has completed nearly five and half years of her sentence. 3. Learned Amicus Curiae does not want to argue this case on merit. Citing the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, he pleaded mercy of this Court only on the quantum of punishment. 4. The facts of the case are that Trilok Singh (deceased) used to reside in the joint family along with his mother Smt. Sauni Devi and two brothers Jagdish Singh and Dilbar Singh. Deceased Trilok Singh was bachelor while two accused brothers were married and they were residing along with families in the said joint family. 5. It has come in the evidence as well as in the statements made under Section 161 CrPC and Section 164 CrPC, that Trilok Singh was creating nuisance and had become a headache for all the family members. Trilok Singh was in the habit of hurling abuses and very often he used to assault all the members of the family for no reason. He used to commit so many mischiefs including breaking of the doors, windows and other household articles. So, he became intolerable for each and everyone inside and outside the home. Everybody was distressed and 3 disappointed with such a cantankerous, unsocial, unethical and untoward attitude of this miscreant. 6. On one fateful day, this deceased Trilok Singh broke up all the doors of the house by blow of his axe. So, Smt. Sauni Devi, his mother, exhorted one Madan Singh and Dheeraj Singh to bind him with a rope. They, accordingly, did so and thereafter went away from the spot. When Trilok Singh was roped in such a manner, then Smt. Sauni Devi gave several blows of baton to him. Eventually he breathed his last. Thereafter, at the instance of Smt. Sauni Devi, her other two sons, Jagdish Singh and Dilbar Singh buried the corpse in a nearby ditch. All the three accused persons confessed their guilt in their respective statements made under Section 161 & 164 CrPC. 7. Taking into consideration all the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this Court too is of the view that Smt. Sauni Devi had not beaten Trilok Singh with intention to kill him. As it appears, Trilok Singh was a mentally disturbed person. At the most, the only intention of Smt. Sauni Devi was to improve the conduct of the deceased Trilok Singh, and in order to achieve that motto; she had beaten her son Trilok Singh with a baton. Unfortunately, he died. Smt. Sauni Devi has already undergone nearly five and half years’ imprisonment. She is an old lady of 62 years. Hence, in the above narrated peculiar and unfortunate facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the gravity of the incident, the plea of learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant deserves to be accepted. As has been stated above, the other two accused, namely, Jagdish Singh and Dilbar Singh, have already served out their sentences and thereafter they have been released from the jail. 4 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused appellants is upheld. However, the sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part II IPC imposed upon Smt. Sauni Devi is reduced to the period already undergone by her. The impugned judgment and order dated 25.7.2007, passed by the Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in Sessions Trial No. 17/2006, State v. Jagdish Singh & Others, is modified to the this extent only. 9. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the trial court for its compliance and to ensure the release of Smt. Sauni Devi from the jail. Lower court record be sent back. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 26.12.2011 Prabodh