REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1201 OF 2007

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]