Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 23 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1723 of 2007
BETWEEN:-
1. KAMAL S/O DARYAB PATEL, AGED ABOUT 30
Y E A R S , VILL.ULDAN
P.S.BAHROL,DISTT.SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. UDAL S/O DARYAL PATEL, AGED ABOUT 35
Y E A R S , VILL.ULDAN
P.S.BAHROL,DISTT.SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. LAKHAN S/O DARYAB PATEL, AGED ABOUT
30 YEARS, VILL.ULDAN
P.S.BAHROL,DISTT.SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. HALKI BAI @ HALKI BAHUDARYAB PATEL,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, VILL.ULDAN
P.S.BAHROL,DISTT.SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. SAROJ BAIUDAL PATEL, AGED ABOUT 30
Y E A R S , VILL.ULDAN
P.S.BAHROL,DISTT.SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI NARENDRA LODHI - ADVOCATE AS AMICUS CURIAE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PS.
BAHROL DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AKANKSHA
MAURYA
Signing time: 07-03-2024
18:19:24
2
(BY SHRI MANOJ JHA - PANEL LAWYER )
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
B y the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the appellants have challenged the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Vth Additional
Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T. No.97/2008 whereby the appellants have
been convicted under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced
to undergo R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.2,00/- each and u/S 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and sentence to undergo RI for 6 months and fine of
Rs.200/- each with default stipulations.
2. As none appeared on behalf of the appellants, Shri Narendra Lodhi,
Advocate who is present in the court, has been requested to assist the
Court on behalf of the appellants as amicus curiae.
3 . As per prostitution story on 23.09.2004 deceased/Shri Bai died
during treatment and in investigation it was found that she was being
subjected cruelty for demanding dowry by his husband and in laws.
4 . The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. During the
trial, the appellants namely Kamal for 66 days and other accused for 54
days remained in custody. He prayed for acquittal of the appellants.
Alternatively prayed for reduction of sentence of imprisonment to the
period already undergone by them.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State
supported the judgment and submitted that the prosecution has duly
proved the incident and the learned sessions Court has rightly convicted
the appellant under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
6. After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal
of record, it appears that FIR was lodged at P.S. Bahrol District Sagar on
29.09.2004 against the appellants which was registered as Crime No.
104/2004 under Section 304-B and 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.
7. Learned Trial Judge after considering the statements of the witnesses
by judgment dated 08.08.2007 convicted the appellants under Section 498-
A of the IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced as
stated herein above, however, the findings recorded by the learned Trial
Judge are based on due appreciation of evidence and do not require any
interference. The judgment of conviction under Section 498-A of IPC and
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is upheld.
8. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year
2004, appellant Halkibai was 80 years old and other appellants were 30-35
years of age at the time of incident. The appellant Kamal remained in
custody for 66 days and other accused persons for 54 days the
prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the
appellants on record and there was no minimum sentence has been
prescribed at that time under Sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code and
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, I deem it proper to reduce the jail
sentence of the appellants to the extent of the period which they have
already undergone.
9 . Accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced to the period already
undergone by the appellants, and the sentence of fine is affirmed. Order of
trial court regarding disposal of property, if any, is also affirmed.
10. The appellants are on bail, their personal bonds and bail bonds be
discharged. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
11 . Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the
judgment.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
Akm
