Full Judgment
Criminal Appeal No.2710/1997. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.2710/1997 Appellants : Surendra S/o Keshav Prasad Choubey Vs. Respondent : The State of Madhya Pradesh Present: Hon. Shri Justice B.D.Rathi For appellant : Shri S.K.Sharma, Advocate For the respondent : Shri C.K. Mishra, Government Advocate JUDGMENT
( 20.9.13) This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”.) has been preferred against the judgment dated 17/12/1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.11/96, whereby appellant has been convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”.) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to suffer R.I. for four months. Marriage of Aarti (since deceased) was solemnized with the appellant.
2. According to the prosecution case, appellant persistently subjected Aarti to cruelty and harassment due to non satisfaction of demand for dowry and, ultimately, on 3/12/1995, Aarti committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil upon herself and setting herself ablaze. By the impugned judgment itself, appellant has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304B in alternative 306 of the IPC, whereas, his parents have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 304B, 306 and 498A of the IPC.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he does not want to challenge the conviction awarded to the appellant. However, he prayed that the custodial sentence passed against the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone and the fine amount may be suitably enhanced. According to him, the appellant has already suffered imprisonment for six months and 23 days. 2 4. In response, learned Government Advocate while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence on record, submitted that the conviction and sentences were well merited and the impugned judgment did not warrant interference.
5. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, perused the record of the trial Court.
6. As the conviction is not under challenge, adverting to the question of sentence, it is apparent from the record that the incident took place, as early as, in the year 1995 and since then the appellant has faced the prosecution and suffered the ordeal of trial and appeal for a considerable period of more than eighteen years. Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case including the period of incarceration, interests of justice would be met if the term of custodial sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
7. In view of the aforesaid, impugned conviction is maintained. However, the impugned term of custodial sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. However, amount of fine is enhanced from Rs.2000/- to Rs.5000/- with a direction to suffer S.I. for three months in default. Needless to say that any amount already deposited towards fine sentence awarded by the trial Court, shall be adjusted in the enhanced fine amount of Rs.5000/-.
8. In the result, the appeal stands allowed in part. Appellant is on bail. In case he deposits the enhanced amount of fine before the trial Court within one month from today, his bail bonds shall stand discharged, failing which the trial Court shall take appropriate steps for executing the default stipulation as indicated above.
9. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance. (B. D. RATHI) JUDGE209/2013 (and)