Gaya Prasad Sharma vs The State Of M.P,
2023 Latest Caselaw 3696 MP

                                                         1
                          IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT GWALIOR
                                                  BEFORE
                               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                             ON THE 2 nd OF MARCH, 2023
                                          CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 585 of 2005

                         BETWEEN:-
                         1.    GAYA PRASAD SHARMA S/O HAZARI LAL
                               SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDENT OF
                               V I L L A G E BADERA P.S. SIRONJ, DISTRICT
                               VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    KALLU SHARMA S/O GAYA PRASAD SHARMA,
                               AGED    ABOUT    26  YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                               AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT OF     VILLAGE
                               BADERA P.S. SIRONJ , DISTRICT VIDISHA
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    SMT RUKMANI BAI W/O GAYA PRASAD SHARMA,
                               AGED     ABOUT     66    YEARS, OCCUPATION
                               HOUSEWIFE, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BADERA P.S.
                               SIRONJ, DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....APPELLANTS
                         (BY SHRI PRABHAKAR KUSHWAH- ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         THE STATE OF M.P, INCHARGE P.S. ARON, DISTRICT
                         GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SHRI CP SINGH- PANEL LAWYER)

                               Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
                         following:
                                                       JUDGMENT

This appeal is pending since 2005. On 25-06-2013, 23-02-2017 and 26- 05-2017, no one had appeared for appellants. Therefore, Shri Prabhakar Kushwah who is in the Panel of Legal Services Authority is appointed as Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 3/3/2023 6:42:41 PM

counsel for the appellants.

Instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 14-09-2005 passed by Second Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Sessions Trial No. 246 of 2004, whereby each of the appellants has been sentenced to undergo six years RI with fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 306 of IPC, sentenced to undergo one year RI with fine of Rs.250/- for offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, with default stipulation. As per Section 71 of IPC, no separate sentence has been awarded for commission of offence under Section 498-A of

IPC. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

Prosecution case, in short, is that the marriage of deceased Rajkumari was solemnized with appellant Kallu before six years of the incident. After her marriage, there was a dispute between the family members of deceased and appellants, therefore, deceased started living separately in her maternal home. When appellant Kallu went to bring her back to his house but despite assurance given by appellant Kallu, the deceased consumed poisonous substance and thereafter she was admitted in District Hospital on 24-06-2004 and during treatment she died within seven years of her marriage. A merg was recorded under Section 174 of IPC vide no.79 of 2004 and merg was enquired. Thereafter, FIR at Crime No.289 of 2004 was registered for offence under Section 306/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.The appellants were arrested. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation and other formalities, challan was filed before the competent Court from where the case was committed to the Sessions Court for its trial and after conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court convicted and Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 3/3/2023 6:42:41 PM

sentenced the appellants for the aforesaid offences, as mentioned above.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants submits that due to family dispute between the family of deceased and the appellants, the deceased was living separately in her maternal home. No offence of committing abetment with the deceased is made out against the appellants. However, he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence has taken place as back as in the year 2004, appellant no. 1 and 3 are very old persons, the appellants are facing judicial proceedings for the last 19 years, appellant no.1 and 3 has served in custody a period of approximately two months whereas the appellant no.2 has served in custody a period of approximately two years, therefore, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused- appellants nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.

It is not in dispute that occurrence has taken place as back as in the year 2004, appellant no. 1 and 3 are very old persons, the appellants are facing

judicial proceedings for the last 19 years, appellant no.1 and 3 has served in custody a period of approximately two months whereas the appellant no.2 has served in custody a period of approximately two years and so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to overall circumstances and keeping in view that the offence in question was committed nearly 19 years

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 3/3/2023 6:42:41 PM

back, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial Court for the aforesaid offences is reduced to the period already undergone by them.

Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the appellants' conviction for aforesaid offences, the sentence awarded to the appellants is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE MKB

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 3/3/2023 6:42:41 PM