National Commission Of Women vs State Of Delhi & Anr

2. The facts are as under:

3.1 Sunita then aged 21 years, committed suicide by consuming aluminium phosphide tablets on 14th April, 2003. A suicide note Ex. P.4 (G) found near her body was proved to be written in her hand. In the suicide note, she pointed out that she had taken tuitions from the accused, Amit, at her residence in Rajgarh Colony and during that period had developed a deep friendship with him leading to physical relations as well. He also held out a promise of marriage but later backed off and when she remonstrated with him and reminded him of his promise he threatened to expose and defame her in case she insisted on meeting him. She stated in the suicide note that the accused continued to have sexual relations with her but also compelled her to have sexual relations with others as well. Frustrated and feeling exploited, Sunita thus committed suicide. 2.2 The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, by his judgment dated 21st April, 2008, relying primarily on the dying declaration which was the suicide note, convicted the accused under Section 306 of the IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2506 of 2009 REPORTABLE 3 years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months in addition, and to imprisonment for life under Section 376 of the IPC and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months; both the sentences to run concurrently.

2.4 An order reducing the term of imprisonment for life to that already undergone was, accordingly, made.

6. This Section specifically provides that it is the State Government or the Central Government which can issue a direction to the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal before the Court of Session or the High Court on the ground of inadequacy of the sentence. This Section does not in any manner authorize an appeal to the Supreme Court. We are, S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2506 of 2009 REPORTABLE 8 therefore, unable to comprehend as to how the Commission was entitled to maintain an appeal in the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court. An appeal is a creature of a Statute and cannot lie under any inherent power. This Court does undoubtedly grant leave to the appeal under the discretionary power conferred under Article 136 of the Constitution of India at the behest of the State or an affected private individual but to permit anybody or an organization pro-bono publico to file an appeal would be a dangerous doctrine and would cause utter confusion in the criminal justice system. We are ,therefore, of the opinion that the Special Leave Petition itself was not maintainable.

10. Ms. Priya Hingorani's submission with regard to the reasons which weighed with the Court while reducing the sentence must now be dealt with. Sub-section (1) of 376 of the IPC provides for the imposition of a sentence of upto ten years or life but the proviso says that the Court may for adequate and special reasons, impose a lesser sentence. We are of the opinion that the discretion exercised by a Court, particularly a superior court, should not be lightly interfered with. We have quoted from the judgment of the High Court hereinabove and find that several factors had been taken into account while imposing a lesser sentence and it would be improper for us to interfere in the High Court's discretion on the quantum of sentence except in extraordinary circumstances. We do not see any such circumstance. We, accordingly, dismiss the Special Leave Petition as not maintainable. The permission to file the S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2506 of 2009 REPORTABLE 13 Special Leave Petition granted vide this Court's order dated 2nd April, 2009, is, accordingly, revoked.

.......................J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI) .......................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD) New Delhi, July 23, 2010.