Prajesh Kumar & Anr. vs The State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 3430 MP

                                                              1
                          IN      THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
                                                 ON THE 1 st OF MARCH, 2023
                                            CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2984 of 1998

                         BETWEEN:-
                         1.     PRAJESH KUMAR & ANR., AGED ABOUT 22
                                YEARS, (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.     RAJESHWARI S/O BHARATPUR, AGED ABOUT 25
                                YEARS, BHARATPUR PS REETHI KATNI (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                               .....APPELLANT
                         (BY SHRI SHIVAM SINGH - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         THE STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SHRI C.M. TIWARI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                         following:
                                                               ORDER

With the consent of the parties, the appeal is heard finally. This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the appellants being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence arising out of judgment and finding of the Court of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Katni District Katni dated 30.11.1998 passed in Sessions Trail No.326 of 1996 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVESH K SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 3/2/2023 12:10:11 PM

2. A s per prosecution case, Savita Bai (Deceased) was married to Sunil Kumar (co-accused) in 1983. The allegation is that both the accused and co- accused used to make dowry demands and would treat Savita with cruelty. As a result thereof, Savita set fire to herself on 08.04.1996, at about noon. Thereafter, the appellants and co-accused Sunil Kumar and Sushil Kumar came to Katni where they hired a vehicle from Kishore Singh (PW/4). All the accused persons then placed Savita inside the vehicle to take her to the Hospital. However, they first took her to Sahab Ganj and then to Kuseri. They reached Hospital in the night. By that time, Savita had succumbed to her injuries. The present appellant No.1 (Prajesh Dubey) is the brother in law of the deceased

and appellant No.2. is the friend of the other co-accused.

3. The learned trial Court below after recording the statement of prosecution witnesses come to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty for the alleged offences and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as above, and acquitted from Section 201 of the IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the incident had taken place on 08.04.1996 and no purpose would be served by sending the appellant jail after a lapse of about 27 years. It is further submitted that the fine amount may be increased in lieu of conviction. It is further submitted that appellant No.1 (Prajesh) has already undergone jail sentence for more than 3 months and appellant No.2 (Rajeshwari) has already undergone 2 months 20 days of his total awarded sentence.

5. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the same.

7. Considering the aforesaid submissions, while maintaining the conviction under Section 201 of IPC of the appellants, the jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants. Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVESH K SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 3/2/2023 12:10:11 PM

8. The appellants are on bail, their bail bond shall remain discharged subject to deposit of enhanced fine amount within stipulated period.

Let record of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this order for information and necessary action.

Pending I.A., if any, stands closed.

Certified copy, as per rules.

With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, the appeal is disposed off.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) JUDGE DevS

Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVESH K SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 3/2/2023 12:10:11 PM