Abhilash Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3735 MP

                              1

     THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
         PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

                   Cr.A.No.1751/2016
                Abhilash Pandey and another
                          Versus
                       State of M.P.

Date of Order              16/03/2022
Bench Constituted          Single Bench
Order delivered by         Hon'ble Shri       Justice   Sanjay
                           Dwivedi, J
Whether approved for
reporting
Name of counsels for       For appellant No.1: Shri Sanjeev
the parties                Kumar Saxena, Advocate
                           For appellant No.2:Shri Tej Kumar
                           Modh, Advocate
                           For Respondent-State: Shri Ajay
                           Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer
Law laid down
Significant Para Nos.

Reserved on: 08/12/2021
Delivered on: 16/03/2022

                        ORDER

This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has arisen out of the judgment dated 29/06/2016 passed by Session Judge, Shahdol District Shahdol in Sessions Case No.164/2013, whereby the appellant no.1 was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereunder to suffer RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.2,000/-and in default further RI for two months, under Section 498A/34 of IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer

RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default further RI for one month, under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced thereunder to suffer RI for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/-with default stipulation. Appellant no.2 was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498A/34 of IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer RI for two years with fine of Rs.1,000/-with default stipulation and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced thereunder to suffer RI for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/-with default stipulation.

Counsel for the appellant no.1 submits that appellant no.1 namely Abhilash Pandey has already suffered sentence awarded to him and has been released from jail, therefore, he does not want to press this appeal on behalf of appellant no.1.

Now this appeal has to be considered only on behalf of the appellant no.2.

Counsel for appellant no.2 submits that from the statement of witnesses recorded during the trial, it is clear that no complaint has ever been made by the parents of the deceased with regard to demand of dowry by the present appellant. They have also not contacted to any of the authority or head of the society, so as to settle the dispute between them, so that the deceased would not be harassed by the husband and mother-in-law (present appellant). He submits that in the absence of any such attempt made by the parents of the deceased, the statement regarding demand of dowry can be considered to be an after thought and has been developed after death of the deceased. He has drawn attention of this Court towards the statement of brother of

the deceased who has been declared hostile and has very categorically stated before the Court that his sister(deceased) had never informed him about any such demand of dowry. He submits that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, conviction awarded to appellant no.2 under Section 498-A/34 of IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is not sustainable and she should be discharged from all the charges levelled against her.

Counsel for State on the other hand has submitted that in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C and before the Court the witnesses have consistently stated against the present appellant especially with regard to demand of dowry. He submits that merely because they did not approach to any police authority before death of the deceased or did not make any attempt to resolve the dispute between the deceased, her husband and mother-in-law, it cannot be presumed that statement regarding demand of dowry is an after thought and that should be discarded. He submits that in view of findings given by the court below after appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties are reasoned one and that does not require any interference and same should be upheld.

Considering the arguments advanced by counsel for parties and perusal of record the trial court after appreciating the statement of witnesses adduced by the prosecution and other material available on record finally found that so far as appellant no.2 is concerned she is not guilty of an offence under Section 304-B of IPC, but as per the statement of PW-3 Ramkhilawan Mishra, PW-4 Smt.

Tara Bai PW-5 Smt.Geeta Tiwari she is found involved with appellant no.1 for demand of dowry. PW-3 Ramkhilawan Mishra has also stated that he had telephonic discussion with appellant no.2 in which also she had demanded money. He had also given the date i.e 13/01/2013 on which the demand was again made. He has stated that after one year of marriage the deceased started making complaint about physical and mental cruelty by her husband and mother-in-law (appellant no.2) due to non fulfilment of demand of dowry. He further stated that he visited the house of his son-in-law to make them understand that at present he had no money but as and when it could be arranged, the same would be paid to them and also requested not to harass his daughter. PW-4 Tara Bai has also reiterated the same facts regarding demand of dowry made by husband and mother-in-law (appellant no.2) of deceased. PW-5 Smt. Geeta Tiwai has also stated alleging against the appellant no.2.

Counsel for the appellant further submits that appellant no.2 is a teacher and if she is convicted or her sentence is maintained her service career would be ruined. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed in Criminal Revision No.2661/2019 (Sukhdeen Lodhi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) in which the High Court considering the fact that applicant is a government teacher having no criminal past and was first offender and also taking note of his good conduct gave him benefit of Section 12 of provision of offenders Act, 1958, because according to the High Court if sentence is maintained career of the applicant being a government teacher would be adversely

affected.

The judgment on which counsel for the appellant is relying is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, because here in this case the prosecution has proved the case of Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellant no.2 beyond all reasonable doubt. But, in the present case sufficient evidence & material available on record to hold the appellant no.2 guilty and as such finding given by the trial court is well founded and reasoned one.

Counsel for the appellant during the course of argument has failed to establish any such ground on which finding given by the trial court can be dislodged.

From the material available on record, it is nowhere found that the appellant no.2 is a teacher and under such a circumstance, I do not find any reason to set-aside the judgment passed by the trial court convicting the appellant no.2 under Section 498-A/34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. However, considering the fact that appellant no.2 is a lady and offence is of the year 2013, at this stage it does not seem appropriate to send the appellant no.2 in jail, therefore, the sentence awarded to her is reduced to the period already undergone which is w.e.f 30/05/2013 to 01/08/2013.

Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. Since the appellant no.2 is already on bail, her bail bonds shall stand discharged.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE

SUSHMA Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=06cc7ec7869e71b23c61580e1aaad85481f7ea48cd875c18e5a68787

KUSHWAHA 947df0c5, pseudonym=3162691BECDE33282E19E0CEBA20524E31482089, serialNumber=0844205F54108DDA40342AD423EF1D3DE29D4F5E3FC94CC 59B05D91905B104C7, cn=SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Date: 2022.03.21 18:04:26 +05'30'