Bardi Devi vs. State

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of Decision: 4 May, 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ CRL.A. 329/2004
RAJU .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Kuldeep Kumar & Ms. Aashaa
Tiwari, Advs with Appellant in
person.
versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State.
Mr. Shailesh Chandra Jha, Adv
(DHCLSC) for victim / R-2.

+ CRL.A. 330/2004 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 674/2004
BARDI DEVI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Kuldeep Kumar & Ms. Aashaa
Tiwari, Advs with Appellant in
person.
versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State.
Mr. Shailesh Chandra Jha, Adv
(DHCLSC) for victim / R-2.

+ CRL.A. 535/2004
SHAMBHU .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Kuldeep Kumar & Ms. Aashaa
Tiwari, Advs with Appellant in
person.
versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State.
Mr. Shailesh Chandra Jha, Adv
(DHCLSC) for victim / R-2.


Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 329/2004, 330/2004 & 535/2004 Page 1 of 8

Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
10:07:58

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J.
1. Savita was set on fire, allegedly by her mother-in-law, brother-in-law
and husband in the month of November, 2000 at about 11:00 AM in House
No. B-72, Gali No. 21, Hanuman Mandir, Rajapuri, New Delhi, as she and
her family were not forthcoming with the kind of expectations her husband
and family had with regard to the Dowry. She was harassed and tortured and
finally, she was set on fire, during which the mother-in-law and brother-in-
law allegedly caught hold of her hands and her husband did the rest of the
act.
2. Incidentally, the matter was not reported to the police on the date of
incident and for that matter, she was not even taken to the hospital, but was
transferred to her paternal home, where she was given Ayurvedic/local
treatment. She was pregnant at that time and delivered a female child and
after about 20 days of delivery of the child, she lodged the report with the
police on 13.04.2001, which resulted into registration of FIR No. 289/2001
by the police of Police Station Dabri, Delhi.
3. Accused Raju, Shambhu and Bardi Devi were charged under Section
307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code (IPC), under Section 498A IPC
read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 342 read with Section 34 IPC.
The chargesheet filed against them culminated into conviction of the
aforesaid three accused persons through the Judgment dated 17.01.2004 and
all three were sentenced to various punishments in terms of the Order on
Sentence dated 20.01.2004. All accused persons were sentenced as under:
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 329/2004, 330/2004 & 535/2004 Page 2 of 8

Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
10:07:58

4. Against the backdrop of these facts and circumstances, the instant
appeal was filed, wherein now the victim Savita has appeared alongwith her
husband and brother-in-law. Victim Savita has categorically stated before
the Court that she does not want any action against the Appellants inasmuch
as the matter was resolved subsequently, and she had started living with the
Appellant/her husband Raju. And not only that, she has given birth to two
more children from Appellant Raju. Three children were already there from
her marriage with Raju. An affidavit to that effect has been filed on behalf of
the victim Savita.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant, in these circumstances, came up
with the plea that the Appellants do not challenge the conviction and confine
their contentions to the aspect of sentence awarded to them by submitting
that they have already undergone a substantive period of custody during the
trial and post conviction, thus, indulgence qua that is required. The victim
does not want any action against them for the simple reason that she is now
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 329/2004, 330/2004 & 535/2004 Page 3 of 8

Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
10:07:58

living with her husband-Appellant Raju happily and there is no complaint
against the other two as well.
6. It is further submitted that no fruitful purpose will be served by
sending the Appellants to jail to serve the remaining sentence and as such it
is submitted that the appeal may be disposed of accordingly.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, came up
with the plea that the victim herself is a tell tale story of what all happened
with her. She still continues to carry burn scars on her body, which are
visible, but there may be certain invisible scars which might be there on her
psyche. Those may not be apparent, but must have affected her. She, for the
reasons best known to her, has reconciled and started living with the
Appellant Raju, could be the result of her circumstances. Nevertheless, it is
submitted that the Appellants deserve commensurate sentence in terms of
what has been done by them.
8. To ensure that no injustice is done to anyone, is the prime purpose and
reason for the existence of the Courts of law. Justice may vary according to
perceptions, reasons, outlook and norms but by and large, what is right is
right in every society for everyone and what is wrong is wrong for everyone
in every society.
9. However, the concept of right and wrong is embedded in the humans.
Nevertheless, something may be an offence in a particular society which
may not necessarily be in the other society, but over a period of time the
broad concept of right and wrong has integrated in the Genes of the human
beings, primarily on account of the fact that the right and wrong has some
sort of universal recognition, appeal and application.
10. Right may be right or wrong may be wrong and vice-versa may also
be possible but then it is not necessary that siding with the right is siding
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 329/2004, 330/2004 & 535/2004 Page 4 of 8

Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
10:07:58

with the justice, as at times not siding with the wrong and nor aligning with
the right may also be some sort of justice.
11. Cases like the instant case are apparently a testament of the evils of
dowry system and the extent of greed of materialistic possessions has
blinded the humans, so much so that they are ready and willing and infact, to
snuff out the lives of other human beings for ephemeral gains and objects,
little realizing that the materialistic objects in life are nothing but a grand
illusion, whereas life, in fact, has a different meaning and purpose.

12. Nevertheless Courts are confronted with situations like the one in the
instant case where the parties, being at loggerheads at one point of time,
have reconciled and resolved their differences to resume a normal life.
13. In the words of father of the nation “ An eye for an eye will only make
the whole world blind ”, thus, he emphasized the importance and power of
forgiveness and it seems that the same sense of forgiveness, has prevailed
upon the victim herein namely Savita who, despite being severely burnt,
scars of which are still visible on her physique, has forgiven her husband
and his family as she has come forward and stated that she does not want
any further action against them.
14. That seems to be the reason which prompted the counsel for the
Appellants to adopt the course where the judgment of conviction is not
assailed anymore and the arguments have been confined to the aspect of
sentence only.
15. Time is such a phenomenon, which is constantly on the move and
going on, which can neither be stopped nor brought back even by God leave
alone any human being. It is this phenomenon of the time, which prompts
people to come up with such pleas where it is put forth that the period of
sentence already undergone by them may be treated as the substantial
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 329/2004, 330/2004 & 535/2004 Page 5 of 8

Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
10:07:58

punishment inasmuch as it is beyond the powers of universe to bring back
the time which has gone. That is how people buy peace and reconcile with
their situations.
16. Certain judgments would illustrate this phenomena where Courts have
come to the conclusion that in the given circumstances justice would be to
dispose of a case deliberating over the aspect of sentence only. And where
there were such reasons, which warranted such consideration of punishment
and disposal of the matter those were disposed of too. Reference can be
made to the judgement in Gulab Das v. State of M.P., (2011) 10 SCC 765
wherein it is held as under :
“9. This Court has in a long line of decisions ruled that offences
which are not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC cannot be
allowed to be compounded even if there is any settlement between
the complainant on the one hand and the accused on the other.
Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of this
Court in Ram Lal v. State of J&K [(1999) 2 SCC 213 : 1999 SCC
(Cri) 123] and Ishwar Singh v. State of M.P. [(2008) 15 SCC 667
: (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1153] We have, therefore, no hesitation in
rejecting the prayer for permission to compound the offence for
which Appellants 2 and 3 stand convicted.

10. Having said that, we are of the view that the
settlement/compromise arrived at between the parties can be
taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the
quantum of sentence to be awarded to the appellants. That is
precisely the approach which this Court has adopted in the cases
referred to above. Even when the prayer for composition has been
declined this Court has in the two cases mentioned above taken
the fact of settlement between the parties into consideration while
dealing with the question of sentence. Apart from the fact that a
settlement has taken place between the parties, there are few other
circumstances that persuade us to interfere on the question of
sentence awarded to the appellants.

11. The incident in question had taken place in the year 1994. The
parties are related to each other. Both Appellants 2 and 3 were at
the time of the incident in their twenties. It is also noteworthy that
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 329/2004, 330/2004 & 535/2004 Page 6 of 8

Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
10:07:58

the incident had led to registration of a cross-case against the
complainant party in which the trial court has already convicted
Veeraji and others for the offences punishable under Sections
325/34 and 323 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment
for a period of two years and a fine of Rs 300 and imprisonment
of six months under Section 323 IPC. We are told that the parties
having settled the matter, will approach the High Court for an
appropriate order in the appeal pending before it. More so, the
appellants have already served substantial part of the sentence
awarded to them.

12. In the totality of the circumstances we are of the view that the
settlement arrived at between the parties is a sensible step that
will benefit the parties, give quietus to the controversy and
rehabilitate and normalise the relationship between them.

13. In the result, while upholding the order of conviction recorded
by the courts below, we reduce the sentence awarded to the
appellants to the sentence already undergone by them. The appeal
is to that extent allowed and the impugned orders modified. The
appellants shall be set free forthwith if not otherwise required in
any other case.”

17. In the instant case the Appellant-Raju was married with Savita and for
reasons of insufficient dowry certain disputes were there. Appellant Raju,
his brother and their mother also joined not only to demand dowry from the
parents of Savita, but to harass her as well. She was about five months
pregnant when the incident took place, but not only she, her child also
survived when she was set on fire. Incidentally, she was not taken to the
hospital, but the medication of local Doctors/Vaids/Ayurveda-Acharyas
helped her recover and that is the reason why FIR was registered on
13.04.2001, whereas the incident pertains to the year November 2000.
18. What has been stated by Savita in her affidavit and otherwise orally
also that she does not want any action against the Appellants as she is living
with her husband Raju happily. She is the mother of five children out of
which three were born after the incident. Indeed women have very large
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 329/2004, 330/2004 & 535/2004 Page 7 of 8

Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
10:07:58

heart.
19. Any sentence at this stage involving further custody would ruin the
cordiality, which she has achieved in her revived relationship with her
husband Appellant-Raju. The acceptance by her brother-in-law and mother-
in-law and her forgiveness for them has resulted in the family coming
together. Addition in the family by having three more children speaks in
favour of the Appellants. To disturb this equilibrium would be detrimental
not only to the Appellants herein but for the victim Savita and her five
children too. The matter pertains to the year 2000 and now after 25-26 years
things have radically changed for everyone and for good.
20. In view of the facts and circumstances, plea raised by counsel for the
Appellants about modifying the sentence is accepted and while upholding
the judgment of conviction dated 17.01.2004, sentence stands modified to
the following effect that the period of custody undergone by Appellants shall
be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
21. With these observations the appeal accordingly stands disposed of.
Application(s), if any, also disposed of.


VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J
MAY 04, 2026/ akc/hk
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 329/2004, 330/2004 & 535/2004 Page 8 of 8

Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
10:07:58