Allahabad High Court
Brajesh & Another vs State Of U.P. on 14 September, 2017
Bench: Rekha Dikshit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 565 of 2011
Appellant :- Brajesh & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Satyendra Kumar Awasthi,Avinash Tiwari,Bhanu Pratap Singh,Harish Chandra,Y N Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Mrs. Rekha Dikshit,J.
This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.2.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Sitapur in S.T. No. 767 of 2006, arising out of case crime no.182 of 2005 convicting the appellants under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 201 IPC & Sec.4 D.P.Act and sentencing them under section 304-B IPC to undergo ten years Rigorous imprisonment, under section 498-A IPC to undergo two years R.I. with a fine of Rs.1000/- and section 201 IPC to undergo 3 years R.I. with a fine of Rs.1000/- & under section 4 D.P.Act to undergo 1 year R.I. with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine 1 month additional R.I..All the sentences shall run concurrently.
From perusal of the order dated 11.3.2017 it appears that appellant no.2, Deshraj has expired on 7.5.2017, hence appeal against him stands abated. However, the report of concerned CJM to this effect is still awaited.
Heard Sri Avinash Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri M.S.Yadav, learned A.G.A.for the State and perused the record.
During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants have been in jail for a considerable period of six and half years. He further submitted that he has to say nothing on merits of the case and he simply prays the custodial punishment awarded to the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone in jail. He argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and the prosecutrix was never subjected to cruelty. It is next submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case that dowry has ever been demanded by the appellants. It is also contended that the deceased died on account of natural death. The alleged occurrence pertains to the year 2005.
After perusing the judgment impugned, I am of the view that the ends of justice will be met if the custodial punishment awarded to the appellant no.1, namely Brajesh is reduced to the period already undergone by him in jail.
In the circumstances mentioned above, modifying the period of custodial sentence, it is directed that the appellant no.1, Brajesh is sentenced to imprisonment already undergone by him in jail. Besides,he is sentenced to deposit Rs.3000/- as fine before the trial court.
Thus, the appeal is partly allowed with modification on the point of sentence only as mentioned above. Conviction is maintained.
Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Sessions Judge concerned for its onward transmission to the court concerned for information and further action in the matter.
Order Date :- 14.9.2017
IA
