Full Judgment
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1681/1997 Hari Prasad Vs. State of M.P. As Per : G.S.Solanki, J.
Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate for the appellant. Shri C.K. Mishra, GA for the respondent/State. JUDGMENT
(24 /09/2013) This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant u/s 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 25/07/1997 passed by Sessions Judge, Panna in S.T. No.94/94 whereby he has been convicted u/s 498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years & fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer further SI for 6 months.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that marriage of appellant and deceased Gunta Bai was solemnized before 7 years of the incident. It is alleged against this appellant and his parents, mother Dropadi Bai and father Bhaddu that they were committing cruelty on deceased Gunta Bai. In this regard a Panchayat was 2 organized where appellant made an agreement that in future he will not make any cruelty or harassment to deceased. On the basis of aforesaid agreement Gunta Bai went to her matrimonial house but behavior of appellant was not changed. He continued making harassment to deceased Gunta Bai. Being harassment she committed suicide on 22/04/94 by pouring kerosene oil on her body and set to ablaze herself. After the incident one Pappu Yadav informed at police station Raipura where merg (Ex.P-1) was registered. The dead body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination. After due investigation, appellant alongwith his parents Dropadi Bai and Bhaddu were charge sheeted before the Committal Court. In turn, Committal Court committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Learned Sessions Judge has framed the charges u/s 306, 498-A of IPC against them.
3. Appellant and co-accused abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication. They produced Guljari Lal Yadav and Kandhilal Kori as defence witnesses. After appreciation of evidence on record though Dropadi Bai and Bhaddu have been acquitted to all the charges and appellant also acquitted to the charge u/s 306 of IPC however, he has been convicted u/s 498-A of IPC and sentenced as mentioned hereinabove.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted 3 that he does not want to challenge the conviction recorded by the trial Court, however, he has submitted that appellant is a first offender and he already suffered the jail sentence of about 60 days (two months) therefore, no useful purpose is going to be served by sending the appellant again in the jail, thus, in the interest of justice, he may be sentenced for the period already undergone with enhanced fine amount.
5. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment and finding recorded by the trial Court.
6. Since learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction u/s 498-A of IPC recorded by the trial Court, the same is hereby affirmed.
7. So far as sentence is concerned, the appellant has suffered the jail sentence of about 60 days (two months). The incident took place in the year 1994 and 19 years has been elapsed therefore, in my opinion, no useful purpose is going to be served by again sending the appellant to the jail.
8. Consequently, appeal is partly allowed. The conviction recorded by the trial Court is hereby affirmed, however, the sentence is reduced. The appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone i.e. 60 days (two months) and fine amount is enhanced 4 from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 4000/- in default of payment of fine, he will suffer further SI for one month. Let the remaining fine amount of Rs. 3000/- be deposited by the appellant before the trial Court within two months from today.
9. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged. Record of the court below be sent back with the copy of this judgment for information and compliance. (G.S.Solanki) Judge navin