<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>”There is no quick answer to the pain a woman feels after losing an unborn child, regardless of circumstances”, the Delhi High court has said while enhancing the sentence of a man for banging his car to a tree in fits of rage resulting in the death of his unborn eight-month baby in his wife’s womb.A bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice PS Teji enhanced the sentence to three years from a period already undergone. He also directed the accused to deposit Rs 3, 50,000 at the NPS School for Deaf and Dumb, Near Delhi Police Apartments, Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Delhi, an orphanage by way of seven installments in the sum of Rs.50,000 each. “It is also apparent that due to the act done by the respondent, not only his wife/complainant suffered injuries on her person, but an unborn child has also lost his life. There is no quick answer to the pain a woman feels after losing an unborn child, regardless of circumstances.”“The victim has been the unborn child. He is not in this world and, in view of the settlement arrived at between the respondent and his wife, his cause is not being pursued by his mother,” the bench said.The court’s direction comes while hearing an appeal by the State wherein they requested the enhancement of sentence of the Arshdeep Singh who was found guilty under sections 307 (Attempt to murder) and section 316 (Causing death of quick unborn child by act amounting to culpable homicide ) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).According to a complaint lodged by his wife, Singh had marital discords with his wife. It also revealed that on April 17, 2013 her husband had come to her parental home to take her back and picked up a quarrel with her at parental home also.She also divulged that while returning in Santro Car, Singh threatened that he would kill her as well as the unborn child and would also kill himself. The convict then gave fist punches on the abdominal region of his wife and deliberately struck the car against a truck and then against a tree.The court held that even though both the parties might have come to a settlement but considering the background, the sentence should be enhanced.“In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submission made by the counsel for the respondent/ convict as well as learned APP for the State, we are of the opinion that the sentence awarded to the respondent/convict under Section 307/316 IPC is on the lower side and he deserves to undergo minimum sentence of three years of imprisonment, in addition to the period already undergone (19 days),” the court held.
Originally posted here –