Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/1725/1999 of DEVKARAN AND ORS. Vs THE STATE OF M.P. on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRAON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1725 of 1999
BETWEEN:-
1.DEVKARAN S/O JAMUNA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT35 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST 35 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST
2.MOHANLAL S/O JAMUNAPRASAD, AGED ABOUT39 YEARS, 39 YEARS, BOTH R/O VILLAGE NIPANIA, POLICE STATIONMANDI, DISTRICT SEHORE, (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(SHAFIQULLAH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS.)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( VIVEK LAKHERA -G.A. APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATEGENERAL.)
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
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.
ORDER
This appeal under Section 374 (2)of Cr.P.C. has been filed beingaggrieved with the Judgment and sentence passed by the IInd AdditionalSessions Judge, Sehore, dated 21.6.1999, in S.T. No.150/1998, by which theappellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-Aread with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo six months R.I. with thefine amount of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of paying fine, additional R.I. of threemonths have been imposed.
2. In nut shell, the counsel for the the appellants has argued that the trialcourt as acquitted the appellants from the charges punishable under section 306of IPC and in that condition the conviction cannot be sustained as per theJudgement of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Wasim Vs. State NCT of Delhireported in AIR 2019 SC 3470. Accordingly he has submitted that if the courtaffirmes the conviction, then the jail sentence be reduced to the period alreadyundergone.
3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State hassubmitted that the conviction and sentence is as per law. No interference iscalled for.
4. I have gone through the statement of Ram Singh - P.W.-1, Smt.Mathribai - P.W.-2, Ramkunwar - P.W.-8, Ram Singh Verma - P.W.-10 andKodarmal - P.W.-14, the facts came on the record that after delivery ofchildren, the family members of the victim were torturing the victim, so that shehas left her matrimonial home and was residing in her parental home and shewas brought from her parental home on assurance that no cruel treatment will bemade with her, and in these circumstances she committed suicide.
5. Looking to the facts and circumstances, the conviction of theappellants is affirmed.
6. On the point of sentence it is to be seen that the offence had takenplace in the year 1998 and the appellants were in custody for 31 days andappeal is pending since 1999 for the last 24 years. No purpose would beserved by re-sending the appellants to the custody. Hence, looking to the factsand circumstances and nature of offence and the fact that the deceased wasmarried 17-18 years prior to the incident, the jail sentence under Section 498-Ais reduced to the period already undergone and fine amount is enhanced from Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) to Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees TwentyThousand). The appellants shall deposit the enhanced fine amount before thetrial court within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. In default, each appellant shall undergo S.I. for four months.
6. The order of the trial court regarding property is affirmed.
7. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the appellants are discharged subject to depositing enhanced fine amount.
8. The record of the trial court along with the copy of the order of this Court be returned back.
ndDigitally signed by NIDHI DAVE Date: 2023.12.30 10:09:38 -08'00'
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)JUDGE