Allahabad High Court
Hari Shanker vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 March, 2023
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 157 of 2011
Revisionist :- Hari Shanker
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Srees Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. By means of this criminal revision, the revisionist has challenged judgement and order dated 24.01.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (Essential Commodities Act), Unnao in Criminal Appeal No. 09 of 2007 whereby appeal preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 2.11.2007 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2 in Criminal Case No. 746 of 2007, Police Station Chaurasi, District Unnao has been dismissed and the revisionist was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 498-A IPC one year imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- each and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act one year imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,00/- each in default of payment of one month additional imprisonment was awarded. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. Learned counsel for revisionists has submitted that trial court as well as revisional court wrongly convicted the revisionists without appreciating the evidence available on record. It is further submitted that without any reasonable cause, opposite party no. 2, left the house of the revisionist. The marriage between the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 was solemnized on 14.6.1994 and no demand of dowry was raised on behalf of the revisionist. It is further submitted that only interested witnesses were examined before the trial court who deposed against the revisionist. It is further submitted that complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 after more than five years of the marriage. Prima facie, offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is not made out against the revisionist. It is further submitted that revisionist has no criminal history. The trial court as well as revisional court did not considered the evidence in correct perspective and passed the order of conviction and sentence of one year against the revisionist.
4. It is further submitted that after the judgment and order dated 24.01.2011 passed by the revisional court, the revisionist was taken into custody and was granted bail on 20.4.2011. The revisionist was in jail near about four months. It is further submitted that one time settlement has been arrived at between the parties
5. The marriage of the revisionist with opposite party no. 2 was solemnized in the year 1997. The allegation of demand of dowry was levelled against the revisionist after five years of the marriage. Although PW-1 in her statement has stated that after marriage demand of motorcycle, a gold chain and Rs.20,000/- was raised. Perusal of record shows that after five years of marriage the allegation of demand of dowry is a bald allegation. Prima facie, case under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is not made out against the revisionist.
6. Keeping in view the fact that the matter pertains to the year 2002. Perusal of record shows that offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is not made out against the revisionist. He is acquitted of the charge under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The revisionist is convicted and sentenced under Section 498-A IPC. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 498-A IPC no minimum sentence is provided, therefore no fruitful purpose would be served in sending the revisionist in jail to serve out remaining sentence. Therefore, the conviction of the revisionist under Section 498-A IPC is confirmed and sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
7. With the aforesaid observation, this criminal revision is partly allowed.
8. Office is directed to communicate this order the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 22.3.2023
Virendra
