Banwari And Ors vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 6304 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 502/1986

1. Banwari S/o Dhansi Ram.
2. Dhansi Ram S/o Kushla Ram (Died)
                 Both resident of Kotputli


                                                                  ----Appellants
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mohit Balwada, Adv. with Ms. Bhavana Choudhary, Adv. & Mr. Ankit Saini, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 14.09.2022

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 22.09.2022

Appellants have filed this appeal challenging the

judgment & order dated 28.10.1986 passed by the learned

Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No.21/84,

whereby appellants were convicted and sentenced for the

offence(s) punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC. The

conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants reads as

under:-

U/s 498-A IPC- Three years rigorous imprisonment with a

fine of Rs.500/-, in default payment of

fine to undergo six months rigorous

imprisonment.

                                            (2 of 5)                  [CRLA-502/1986]



U/s 306 IPC-            Eight years rigorous imprisonment with a

fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of

fine to undergo nine months rigorous

imprisonment.

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Prosecution story in brief is that, Mathuram Saini lodged a

report at Police Station-Kotwali on 21.08.1983 that his daughter

was married to accused-appellant-Banwari Lal on 28.02.1981 and

they used to harass for want of dowry. So, they had murdered her

daughter.

After completion of investigation and necessary

formalities, charge-sheet was presented against the accused

appellants.

Charges were framed against the appellants under

Sections 120-B, 498-A and 306 IPC and alternatively, 302 IPC was

added.

In order to prove its case, during trial, prosecution

examined 17 witnesses. appellants were examined under Section

313 Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prayed that they were

innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. Appellants

examined two witnesses in his defence.

Learned trial Court vide judgment & order dated

28.10.1986, ordered the conviction and sentence of the

appellants. Hence, the present appeal filed by the appellants.

During the pendency of appeal, appellant No.2-Dhansi

Ram died. So, appeal is abated qua the said appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal

submits that the learned trial court had erred in ordering the

conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant No.1-Banwari

(3 of 5) [CRLA-502/1986]

Lal. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the

learned trial Court had not read the prosecution evidence in right

perspective. Learned counsel for the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal

also submits that a bare perusal of the FIR, no allegation levelled

against the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal for harassment of dowry.

Learned counsel for the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal further

submits that in FIR, only words used is "Sasural wale". No Specific

allegation levelled against the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal. Learned

counsel for the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal also submits that it is

unbelievable that letters were written by deceased-Murti and

envelop by the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal. Learned counsel for

the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal further submits that as per hand-

writing expert, it is not proved that these letters were written by

deceased-Murti. Learned counsel for the appellant No.1-Banwari

Lal also submits that the learned trial Court had not read the

evidence of PW-9 Kanhaiyalal in right spirit because in his

evidence clearly stated that no demand of dowry was made at the

time of marriage. Learned counsel for the appellant No.1-Banwari

Lal further submits that the letter (Ex.P-2) received by the

complainant on 23.08.1983 and he had not lodged report

immediately. Learned counsel for the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal

also submits that the letter (Ex.P-2) revealed that it is created by

one. So, appellant No.1-Banwari Lal be acquitted from the offence

levelled against him. Alternatively, learned counsel for the

appellant No.1-Banwari Lal further submits that the appellant

No.1-Banwari Lal is facing trauma of trial since 1981. He has

remained in custody about one year. So, in the interest of Justice,

sentence of the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal be reduced to already

undergone.

(4 of 5) [CRLA-502/1986]

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments

advanced by learned counsel for the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal

and submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of

the learned trial Court. So, appeal be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

It is an admitted position that the appellant No.1-

Banwari Lal is facing trauma of trial since 1981. He has remained

in custody about one year. Learned Public Prosecutor has not

submitted any previous conviction report of the appellant No.1-

Banwari Lal. So, in the interest of Justice and looking to the facts

and circumstances of the present case. I deem it just and proper

to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the appellant No.1-

Banwari Lal to the period already undergone by him.

Accordingly, conviction of the appellant No.1-Banwari

Lal is ordered by the learned Court below is maintained. However,

sentence qua imprisonment of the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal is

reduced to the period already undergone by him.

Appellant No.1-Banwari Lal is directed to deposit the

fine awarded by the learned trial Court within a period of one

month.

Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.,

appellant No.1-Banwari Lal is directed to furnish a personal bond

in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, and a surety in the like amount, before

the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a

period of six months, with stipulation that in the event of Special

Leave Petition being filed against the judgment or on grant of

(5 of 5) [CRLA-502/1986]

leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall

appear before the Supreme Court.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Gourav/01

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)