Kuldip Choudhary vs The State Of M.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 3371 MP

                                                                             1                         Cr.A.No.410-1998



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                             BEFORE
                               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
                                                       ON THE 10th March, 2022.
                                               CRIMINAL APPEAL No.410/1998
                      Between :

                      Kuldip S/o Tula Ram Choudhary,
                      aged 35 years, R/o Jagdish Mandir,
                      Garha Phatak, Jabalpur.
                                                                                                         ..... Appellant
                      (By Shri Anand Nayak, Amicus Curiae)
                      (Appellant-Kuldip present in person)

                      And

                      The State of Madhya Pradesh.
                                                                                                     ...... Respondent
                      (Shri D.K.Paroha, Public Prosecutor)
                      ..............................................................................................................
                               This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the court
                      passed the following :

                                                              JUDGMENT

Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed in Sessions Trial No.306/1992 dated 29.01.1998 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, the appellant has preferred this appeal. The appellant has been convicted for offences under Section 324 and 498A of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years on each offence and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.

2- The prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage of appellant and complainant-wife was solemnized on 19.05.1986. Right from the marriage, appellant and his father & mother (Tularam & Ramkali) started to demand dowry. On 23.04.1989, in the morning, appellant asked the complainant to bring dowry and on being refused, the

Signature SAN Not Verified

Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Date: 2022.03.11 16:46:30 IST

appellant put hot iron on her face and neck. By that iron itself, the appellant hit the complainant causing her injuries, whereon, the complainant lodged a report with the police. During investigation, police recorded statement of the witnesses, prepared spot map and seized the iron. After completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accused persons viz. Tularam, Ramkali and Kuldeep. They were charged under Section 498-A & 307/34 of IPC. They abjured their guilt and stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case and pleaded for trial. After trial, co- accused persons have been acquitted of the charges while the present appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in paragraph-1 above.

3- The ld. counsel representing the appellant submitted that he does not want to press the appeal on merits but his limited prayer is that out of 2 years of sentence, the appellant has already suffered about 4 months & 18 days of sentence and fine amount has already been deposited. A prayer is made that sentence of the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

4- Since the merits of the case have not been touched by the ld. counsel appearing for the appellant, therefore, his convictions under Sections 324 & 498-A of IPC recorded by the trial Court are upheld.

5- The appellant, who is present in person before this Court and the complainant married on 19.05.1986. The incident happened on 23.04.1989. After the incident, the complainant left her matrimonial house alongwith her 1½ year-old daughter, since then, she is residing separately in District-Mandla. The Appellant is residing alone in District-Jabalpur. Even after the incident, he made sincere efforts to bring her back but she did not agree.

6- In the year 1998, more precisely, on 16.07.1998, they settled their dispute and entered into a compromise. The compromise deed was also executed on a stamp and notarized before a Notary. The complainant had taken the original stamped compromise deed with her and the appellant has a copy thereof. But, even after executing the compromise deed, she never appeared before the Court for one or the other reasons, therefore, the compromise could not be verified or acted upon or accepted by the trial Court. Now, about 35 years, or to say almost entire life has gone and both the parties have settled their lives in their own worlds. There is no contact between them and no dispute also. The complainant is leading a peaceful life in District- Mandla while the appellant is also compromised with his life and living alone since then. Meanwhile, their daughter grown up. Feeling his responsibility, the appellant has borne all the expenses of her marriage and she is also living happily in her in-laws' house. The appellant is a simple man and is leading a peaceful life with unblemished criminal record. During married life, the appellant came to know about a letter of the complainant inter-alia admitting that someone had rapped her and on this account only, a dispute erupted between the husband and wife and in that heated moment, provoked by the fact, without any intention, preparation or per-meditation, the incident happened and the appellant is facing consequences for his entire life. He has remained in jail for about 5 months (from 24.04.1989 to 12.05.1989).

7- Both the parties are living separately and peacefully for the last 35 years, no useful purpose would be achieved for sending the appellant in jail again for the incident which had taken place in a charged moment. The appellant is ashamed of the same and has

sufficiently faced the consequences, therefore, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.

8- The ld. Public Prosecutor for the State fairly admitted the facts as stated by the ld. counsel for the appellant.

9- The appellant is also present in person before the Court and made his submissions almost on the similar line. A copy of the notarized compromise deed has also been demonstrated by him which has been brought on record.

10- On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be served if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone.

11- So far as the conviction of the appellant under Section 498A and 324 of IPC is concerned, it is upheld. The sentence of the appellant is modified and for the alleged offence, the appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone with the fine imposed by the learned trial Court which has already been deposited.

12- With the aforesaid modification, the appeal is partly allowed and disposed off.

13- The bail bonds of the appellant, if any, are discharged.

(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE @shish