Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dashrath vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 6 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 621 of 2009
BETWEEN:-
DASHRATH, S/O LALE PRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 50
YEARS, R/O KHERA KASAR, POLICE STATION JUJHAR
NAGAR, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI MANISH KUMAR MUKHARIYA - ADVOCATE AS AMICUS
CURIAE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION JUJHAR NAGAR, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MS. SEEMA SHAU - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur (M.P.) in
S . T. No.133/2008 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section
498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo 01 year R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-, with
default stipulation.
2 . As none appeared on behalf of the appellant, Shri Manish Kumar
Mukhariya, Advocate who is present in the Court, has been requested to assist
the Court on behalf of the appellant as amicus curiae.
3. As per prosecution story, the appellant and his son - Kamlesh used to
harass the deceased for dowry, due to this harassment she died in suspicious
circumstances.
4 . Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he does not
press the appeal on the findings of conviction on the point of sentence. He
further submits that the incident was of the year 2008. The appellant has no
criminal antecedents. There was no mens rea behind the incident so a liberal
view on the point of sentence be taken by the Court. So he prayed that the
sentence be reduced to period already undergone.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State
supported the finding of conviction. He said that Court is at liberty to consider
the case on the point of sentence.
6. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal
of record, FIR was lodged on 18.05.2008 and offence under Section 304-B of
IPC has been registered against the appellant. After investigation charge sheet
was filed.
7. Learned trial Judge after considering the statements of the witnesses
by judgment dated 13.03.2009 convicted the appellant under Sections 498-A of
IPC and sentenced as stated herein above, however, the findings of conviction
of accused/appellant recorded by the learned trial Judge are based on due
appreciation of evidence and do not require any interference. Hence,
conviction of appellant under Section 498-A IPC is affirmed.
8. So far as sentence part is concerned, having regard to the arguments
of the parties, and careful perusal of record it reveals that the appellant was 50
years old and co-accused - Kamlesh was 22 years old at the time of incident.
There is no minimum sentence is prescribed under Section 498-A IPC. This
case is pending since 2009 and appellant is facing mental agony since.
Prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellant on
the record. The appellant did not misuse the liberty granted to him under the
bail. He has suffered incarceration of 25 days. Hence, in the considered
opinion of this court, the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to the
period already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine intact so also
the order of the trial Court regarding the disposal of the seized article if any.
9. The appellant is on bail, his personal bond and bail bond be
discharged. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed.
10. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the
judgment.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
sjk
