As noticed earlier accused Parvin Kumar, husband of the deceased, Geetu has not preferred an appeal before this Court, on account of the fact that he has already served out the sentence imposed against him. However, though we cannot obliterate the sufferings of Parvin Kumar, we can certainly obliterate the stigma that attaches to him on account of his conviction for a heinous offence under Section 304 B of the I.P.C. This Court has laid down a judicious principle that even in a case where one of the accused has not preferred an appeal, or even if his Special Leave Petition is dismissed, in case relief is granted to the remaining accused and the case of the accused, who has either not appealed or whose Special Leave Petition has been dismissed, stands on the same footing, he should not be denied the benefit which is extended to the other accused. This has been held in Harbans Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (1982) 2 SCC 101, Raja Ram & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. (1994) 2 SCC 568, Dandu Lakshmi Reddy Vs. State of A.P. (1999) 7 SCC 69 and Akhil Ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed Vs. State of Maharashtra JT 2002 (2) SC 158.
In the instant case we find that the case of Parvin Kumar, who has not filed an appeal, is not distinguishable from the case of the appellants. Since we have acquitted the appellants of the charges levelled against them, we also set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the said Parvin Kumar and acquit him of the charges levelled against him. This appeal is accordingly allowed.
No comments:
Post a Comment