Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/2666/2016 of SUDHAKAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAFON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2666 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
1.SUDHAKAR S/O DHEPALYA DESHMUKH, AGEDABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O VILL. CHHINDEWANI P.S.-LODHIKHERA, DISTRICT CHHINDWARA(MADHYA PRADESH)ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O VILL. CHHINDEWANI P.S.-LODHIKHERA, DISTRICT CHHINDWARA(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.DHEPALYA S/O LOTAN DESHMUKH, AGED ABOUT82 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE CHHINDEWANI, P.S.L O D H I K H E D A , DISTRICT CHHINDWARA(MADHYA PRADESH)
3.KAPURA BAI W/O DHEPALYA, AGED ABOUT 78YE A R S , R/O VILLAGE CHHINDEWANI, P.S.L O D H I K H E D A , DISTRICT CHHINDWARA(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR PANDEY - AMICUS CURIAE)
.....APPELLANT
ANDTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. PSLODHIKHERA CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI G.S. THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
.....RESPONDENTS
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed thefollowing:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGEMENT
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, the appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction and orderof sentence passed by I[s t ]AS J, Sounsar, District Chhindwara, in S.T.
No.160/2014 on 16.09.2016 whereby the appellants have been convicted underSection 498-A of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 3-3-3 months S.I. and fineof Rs.100/- each and in default, to further undergo S.I. for four days.
2. No one is present on behalf of the appellant. Mr. Vijay Kumar Pandey,Advocate present in the Court has been requested to assist the Court on behalfof the appellants as amicus curiae. During trial, appellant Sudhakar remained incustody from 18.2.2014 to 01.04.2014. The appellant Dhepalya remained incustody from 07.05.2014 to 20.05.2014 and appellant Kapura Bai remained incustody from 07.05.2014 to 20.05.2014.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State supported thejudgment and submitted that the learned sessions Court has rightly convictedthe appellants under Section 498-A of I.P.C.
4. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal ofrecord, it appears that the FIR was lodged at Police Station Lodhikhera, DistrictChhindwara against the appellants on 18.02.2014 registered as CrimeNo.38/2014 under Sections 306 and 498-A of I.P.C. During investigation,Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were also added and afterinvestigation, the police filed the charge-sheet. The prosecution examined 09witnesses in support of their case. PW-1 Bhavji and PW-2 Saraswati Baisupported the prosecution case and stated that the deceased was harassed bythe appellants on account of demand of dowry and due to cruelty caused by theappellant, the deceased committed suicide by jumping in the Well. PW-3Vasudev stated that the body of the deceased was recovered from Well. PW-6 Chandrashekhar Gajibhiye opined that the deceased died due to asphyxia onaccount of drowning in water. The learned Sessions Court, after considering thestatement of the witnesses and material available on record, acquitted the appellants from the charges punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C. andconvicted under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and sentenced as stated herein above.After examining the statement of the witnesses and record of the case, I do notfind any reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the learned SessionsCourt as the same are based on due appreciation of evidence. The judgment ofconviction as well as conviction under Section 498-A of I.P.C. are herebyupheld..
5. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year2018, the appellants remained in custody for a considerable period and theprosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellants onrecord. The appellant Dhepalya is aged about 82 years and appellant Kapurabaiis aged about 78 years old. There is no minimum sentence has been prescribedunder Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, I deem it proper to reduce the jailsentence of the appellants to the extent of the period which they have alreadyundergone and accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced. However, fine asimposed upon the appellants are maintained. The appellants are on bail, theirpersonal bonds and bail bonds be discharged. Accordingly, the appeal ispartly allowed.
5. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment Priya.P
(VINAY SARAF)JUDGE