Dhala Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:18100)
2025 Latest Caselaw 11200 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Dhala Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:18100) on 8 April, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2025:RJ-JD:18100]



    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                     JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 225/1995

Dhala Ram S/o Basti Ram R/o Village Kalijar, P.S. Luni,
District Jodhpur.
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                  Versus
State of Rajasthan
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)        :    Mr. R.K. Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)       :    Mr. H.S. Jodha, PP


        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

                              Judgment

08/04/2025

      The present criminal appeal has been filed by the

appellant challenging the judgment dated 17.05.1995 passed

by learned Sessions Judge, District Jodhpur (hereinafter

referred to as 'the trial court') in Sessions Case No.95/1994 by

which the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as

under :

Offence U/s 498-A IPC : One year's R.I. and fine of

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

undergo three months' S.I.

Offence U/s 306 IPC : Five years' R.I. and fine of Rs.5,000/-

and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six

months' S.I.

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

      Brief facts of the case are that on 21.04.1994, Police

recorded the statement of deceased Kamla at Military Hospital,

                     (Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:48:41 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:18100]                 (2 of 19)                         [CRLA-225/1995]



Jodhpur. In her statement, deceased-Kamla disclosedthat she

has been married to the accused for about seven years. She

revealed that she had burned herself using kerosene at about

7   AM    citing     her   husband's        persistent        physical       abuse,

harassment related to dowry and threats regarding his

potential re-marriage to another women as the motivating

factors behind her tragic decision. On this report, Police

registered the FIR and started investigation. On completion of

investigation, challan was filed against the appellant for

offences under Sections 498-A, & 34 IPC.

      Thereafter, charges were framed by the learned trial

court against the appellant under Sections 306 IPC & 498-A

IPC, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

      During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as

many as 14 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited

certain documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused-

appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded.

      Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide

impugned       judgment        dated       17.05.1995              convicted      and

sentenced the accused-appellant for aforesaid offences.

      At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-

appellant submits that no offence under Sections 306 & 498-A

IPC is made out against the appellant. He submits that the

deceased     provided      a    statement          before          the   Police   on

21.04.1994 at about 3 PM in which she indicated that her

husband frequently subjected her to physical abuse and

harassed her for dowry, ultimately threatening to marry

another woman. As a result, resorted to pouring kerosene on

                       (Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:48:41 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:18100]               (3 of 19)                       [CRLA-225/1995]



herself and igniting it. Subsequently, her mother-in-law and

other family members urgently took the deceased to hospital.

Counsel asserts that the Police failed to obtain a medical

certificate from the doctor indicating whether the deceased

was fit condition to provide a statement. He emphasizes that a

postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted on

22.04.1994 and since her death occurred within 24 hours

preceding the postmortem, it is likely that she was not in a

competent state to give such a statement to the Police on

21.04.1994, at 3 AM. Furthermore, counsel points out that an

examination of the deceased Kamla's statement reveals no

accusations against the appellant concering abetment to

commit suicide. He further noted that according to the

testimony of PW.14 - Laxmi Narayan, investigating officer in

this case, there is a clear assertion that he did not record any

statement from the deceased. Moreover, remains unclear who,

if not the investigating officer, record the statement of the

deceased. Counsel continues to assert that no offence under

Section 498-A IPC is substantiate against the appellant as the

specifics any demand made by the appellant to the deceased

are absent. Counsel lastly submits that the occurrence relates

back to year 1994 and the appellant has so far suffered about

1 month & 10 days of sentence, out of total sentence of five

years' R.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the

sentence awarded to the accused-appellant for the offences

under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC may be reduced to the

period already undergone by him.




                     (Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:48:41 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:18100]                   (4 of 19)                       [CRLA-225/1995]



      On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor

opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

accused-appellant. The learned PP submitted that there is

neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to

the accused appellant nor any compassion or sympathy is

called for in the said case.

      I   have       carefully     deliberated         upon      the      arguments

presented by the counsel for the appellant, as well as those

put forth by the learned Public Prosecutor, in conjunction with

the evidence available in the record.

      From the perusal of documents on record, the omnibus

allegation against the present petitioner is that he harassed

and tortured the deceased Kamla, due to which he committed

suicide. At this stage, it is relevant to refer Section 306 IPC

reads as under:--
    "306. Abetment of suicide.--If any person commits
    suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide,
    shall    be      punished       with      imprisonment           of    either
    description for a term which may extend to ten years,
    and shall also be liable to fine."

      For commission of offence punishable under Section 306

IPC, abetment is the necessary thing, which has been defined

in Section 107 IPC. Section 107 IPC, reads as under:--
    "107. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets the
    doing of a thing, who- (First)- Instigates any person to
    do that thing; or

    (Secondly)-Engages with one or more other person or
    persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if
    an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of



                         (Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:48:41 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:18100]                 (5 of 19)                        [CRLA-225/1995]


    that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing;
    or

    (Thirdly)- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
    omission, the doing of that thing.

    Explanation        1.--A         person          who,           by    wilful
    misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a
    material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily
    causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a
    thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that
    thing.

    Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the time
    of the commission of an act, does anything in order to
    facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby
    facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the
    doing of that act."


       When Section 306 IPC is read with Section 107 IPC, it is

clear that there must be: (i) direct or indirect instigation; (ii)

in close proximity to the commission of suicide; along with (iii)

clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide.

       The core element of Section 306 of IPC is the intentional

abetment of suicide. Thus, conviction for the offence under

section 306 IPC, the learned court below is to consider

whether the abettor intentionally instigated or aided the

commission of the suicide. Mere allegations of harassment or

strained relationships do not suffice to establish abetment. In

case     of   Rohini    Sudarshan              Gangurde            v.   State     of

Maharashtra and Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC

1701, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
   "8. Reading these sections together would indicate that
    there must be either an instigation, or an engagement


                       (Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:48:41 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:18100]                    (6 of 19)                        [CRLA-225/1995]


    or intentional aid to 'doing of a thing'. When we apply
    these three criteria to Section 306, it means that the
    accused must have encouraged the person to commit
    suicide or engaged in conspiracy with others to
    encourage the person to commit suicide or acted (or
    failed to act) intentionally to aid the person to commit
    suicide.
    ...

13. After carefully considering the facts and evidence recorded by the courts below and the legal position established through statutory and judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that there is no proximate link between the marital dispute in the marriage of deceased with appellant and the commission of suicide. The prosecution has failed to collect any evidence to substantiate the allegations against the appellant. The appellant has not played any active role or any positive or direct act to instigate or aid the deceased in committing suicide. Neither the statement of the complainant nor that of the colleagues of the deceased as recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation suggest any kind of instigation by the appellant to abet the commission of suicide. There is no allegation against the appellant of suggesting the deceased to commit suicide at any time prior to the commission of suicide by her husband."

A plethora of Apex Court decisions have crystallized the

law of abetment. Abetment involves the mental process of

instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a

particular thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the

IPC, the act of abetment would require the positive act of

instigation or intentionally aiding. Such instigation or

[2025:RJ-JD:18100] (7 of 19) [CRLA-225/1995]

incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the

commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a

position he/ she would have no other option but to commit

suicide.

The legal position as regards Sections 306 IPC which is

long settled was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 1

(2004) 13 SCC 129 as follows in paras 12 and 13:

"12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.

13. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal this Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."

[2025:RJ-JD:18100] (8 of 19) [CRLA-225/1995]

Further in the case of Kishori Lal v. State of M.P.,

Reported in 2 (2007) 10 SCC 797, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court gave a clear exposition of Section 107 IPC when it

observed as follows in para 6:

"6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. "Abetted" in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence."

In the case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of

West Bengal Reported in 2009 7 Supreme 289, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court observed that:-

"15. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had

[2025:RJ-JD:18100] (9 of 19) [CRLA-225/1995]

left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.

16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.

17. The expression 'abetment' has been defined under Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a person instigates any person to do that thing as stated in clause firstly or to do anything as stated in clauses secondly or thirdly of Section 107 IPC. Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence.

18. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, however, clearly stated before us that it would be a case where clause thirdly' of Section 107 IPC only would be attracted. According to him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out as provided for under Section 107 IPC."

[2025:RJ-JD:18100] (10 of 19) [CRLA-225/1995]

The scope and ambit of Section 107 of IPC and its co-

relation with Section 306 of IPC has been discussed repeatedly

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Co-ordinate Bench of

different High Courts. In the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay

Kumar Mahajan and another Reported in (2010) 12 SCC

190, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

"25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mariano Anto

Bruno and Ors. vs. The Inspector of Police Reported in

AIR 2022 SC 4994 observed as under :-

"This Court has time and again reiterated that before convicting an Accused Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of

[2025:RJ-JD:18100] (11 of 19) [CRLA-225/1995]

occurrence on the part of the Accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 Indian Penal Code is not sustainable."

The Hon'ble Apex Court in another case of Mohit

Singhal Vs. State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal No.

3578/2023) dated 01.12.2023 has observed as under :-

"9. In the facts of the case, secondly and thirdly in Section 107, will have no application. Hence, the question is whether the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide. To attract the first clause, there must be instigation in some form on the part of the accused to cause the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she has no choice but to commit suicide. Such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide."

Recently, in the case of Prakash and Others v. The

State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2024 INSC

1020 The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

"13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients- first, an act of suicide by one person and second, the abetment to the said act by another person(s). In order to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it must necessarily be proved that the accused person has contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some direct or indirect act. To prove such contribution or involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied.

14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well established. To attract the offence of abetment to

[2025:RJ-JD:18100] (12 of 19) [CRLA-225/1995]

suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide.

...

20. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". It has been held that in order to satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence, however, a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Applying the law to the facts of the case, this Court went on to hold that a word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.

...

22. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It has been held that since the cause of suicide particularly in the context of the offence of abetment of suicide involves multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. This Court further observed that a mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there is such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide. This Court

[2025:RJ-JD:18100] (13 of 19) [CRLA-225/1995]

also emphasised that such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. It was further clarified that the question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused. It was further held that if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or a snap-show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide, however, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. This Court held that owing to the fact that the human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways and that similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons, each case is required to be dealt with its own facts and circumstances.

...

26. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that instigation or incitement on the part of the accused person is the gravamen of the offence of abetment to suicide. However, it has been clarified on many occasions that in order to link the act of instigation to the act of suicide, the two occurrences must be in close proximity to each other so as to form a nexus or a chain, with the act of suicide by the deceased being a direct result of the act of instigation by the accused person.

27. This Court in the case of Mohit Singhal (supra) reiterated that the act of instigation must be of such intensity and in such close proximity that it intends to push the deceased to such a position under which the person has no choice but to commit suicide. This Court held that the incident which had allegedly driven the deceased to commit suicide had occurred two weeks

[2025:RJ-JD:18100] (14 of 19) [CRLA-225/1995]

prior and even the suicide note had been written three days prior to the date on which the deceased committed suicide and further, there was no allegation that any act had been done by the accused-appellant therein in close proximity to the date of suicide. This Court observed as follows:

"11.In the present case, taking the complaint of the third respondent and the contents of the suicide note as correct, it is impossible to conclude that the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide by demanding the payment of the amount borrowed by the third respondent from her husband by using abusive language and by assaulting him by a belt for that purpose. The said incident allegedly happened more than two weeks before the date of suicide. There is no allegation that any act was done by the appellants in close proximity to the date of suicide. By no stretch of imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants can amount to instigation to commit suicide. The deceased has blamed the third respondent for landing in trouble due to her bad habits.

12. Therefore, in our considered view, the offence punishable under Section 306IPC was not made out against the appellants. Therefore, the continuation of their prosecution will be nothing but an abuse of the process of law."

(emphasis supplied)

28. This Court in the case of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, observed as follows:-

"20. This Court in Mariano Anto Bruno v. State [Mariano Anto Bruno v. State, (2023) 15 SCC 560 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387] , after referring to the abovereferred decisions rendered in context of culpability under Section 306IPC observed as under : (SCC para 45) "45. ... It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of

[2025:RJ-JD:18100] (15 of 19) [CRLA-225/1995]

suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306IPC is not sustainable."

Recently, in the case Lamxi Das vs The State of West

Bengal & Ors. Reported in 2025 INSC 86 the Hon'ble Apex

Court has observed that:-

"14. It is discerned from the record that the Appellant along with her family did not attempt to put any pressure on the deceased to end the relationship between her and Babu Das. In fact, it was the deceased's family that was unhappy with the relationship. Even if the Appellant expressed her disapproval towards the marriage of Babu Das and the deceased, it does not rise to the level of direct or indirect instigation of abetting suicide. Further, a remark such as asking the deceased to not be alive if she cannot live without marrying her lover will also not gain the status of abetment. There needs to be a positive act that creates an environment where the deceased is pushed to an edge in order to sustain the charge of Section 306 IPC."

Upon careful examination of the statement provided by

the deceased, Smt. Kamla (Ex.P-11), it is evident that there is

a lack of substantial evidence linking the appellant to any

actions of abetting her in the act of suicide. The assertion that

Kamla resorted to such a tragic decision without viable

alternatives is not a presumption that can be readily accepted.

In evaluating the circumstances leading to her untimely

death, it is crucial to acknowledge that individuals often

experience a myriad of emotional and psychological factors

[2025:RJ-JD:18100] (16 of 19) [CRLA-225/1995]

that influence their decision-making. The absence of clear

evidence demonstrating direct instigation or encouragement

from the appellant significantly weakens the case for

abetment. Additionally, it is imperative to recognize that

suicide is a complex act, often arising from overwhelming

despair rather than solely as a consequence of external

pressures exerted by other individuals.

Furthermore, attributing Kamla's suicide solely to the

appellant overlooks the potential for other underlying issues

that may have contributed to her mental state, such as

personal troubles, social isolation, or lack of support from

other sources. Such factors are critical to understanding her

circumstances and recognizing that she may have perceived

alternatives to suicide, despite the difficulties she faced.

Therefore, without compelling evidence that the appellant

actively encouraged or facilitated Smt. Kamla's suicide, and

considering the multifaceted nature of suicidal behavior, it is

unjust to conclude that her death was an inevitable result of

his actions or that she had no alternatives available to her.

Thus, the claim of abetment remains unsubstantiated and

warrants thorough reconsideration.

Finally, the burden of proof in criminal cases rests on

establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Given the

complexities of human behavior, mental health issues, and the

subjective experiences of all involved, it can be argued that

the prosecution has not met this high standard. Therefore, it

would be prudent to entertain the possibility of reasonable

doubt regarding Dhala Ram's culpability under Section 306 of

[2025:RJ-JD:18100] (17 of 19) [CRLA-225/1995]

the Indian Penal Code.The prosecution witnesses Narayan

Singh (PW.1), Omprakash (PW.2), Jyotiprakash (PW.3), Rukma

(PW.4), Bhanwari (PW.5), Parmeshwari (PW.6) and Mangla

Ram (PW.13) declared hostile and did not support the story of

prosecution.

Upon a perusal of several aforementioned judicial

pronouncements, we find ourselves unable to agree with the

trial Court. Even if all evidence on record, including the

chargesheet and the witness statements, are taken to be

correct, there is not an iota of evidence against the appellant.

There is no allegation against the petitioner of a nature that

the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit the

unfortunate act of committing suicide. The prosecution must

show that the accused had a motive to abet the suicide. If no

plausible motive is established, and the relationship between

the accused and the deceased does not suggest any ill-willed

intent, the conviction could be set aside. If there is no proof of

any active role played by the accused in the events leading up

to the suicide, such as abusive behaviour or threats, the Court

may set aside the conviction. Simple negligence or even an

argument that does not directly lead to the suicide would not

be sufficient to prove abetment.

In these circumstances, offence under Section 306 IPC is

not made out against the accused-appellant and he is hereby

acquitted from the offence under Section 306 IPC. So far as

offence under Section 498-A IPC is concerned, the testimonies

of the deceased Smt. Kamla, PW.8 - Jamna (mother of the

deceased), PW.10 - Ghewar Ram (brother of the deceased),

[2025:RJ-JD:18100] (18 of 19) [CRLA-225/1995]

and PW.12 - Chainaram (father of the deceased)

unequivocally state that the accused-appellant subjected the

deceased to physical abuse and harassment in connection with

dowry demands. Consequently, the offence under Section 498-

A IPC is clearly established against the accused-appellant.

It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in

the year 1994 and the accused-appellant has suffered about 1

month & 10 days sentence, out of total sentence of five years'

R.I. and so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted

trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact

that the accused-appellant has remained behind the bars for

considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence

awarded by the trial court for offences under Sections 498-A

IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

Accordingly, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. While

maintaining the appellant's conviction for offence under

Section 498-A IPC, the sentence awarded to him for aforesaid

offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone.

The fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed by the trial court for offence

under Section 498-A IPC is hereby maintained. Two months'

time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial

Court. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall

undergo one month's S.I. The appellant is on bail. He need not

to surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged.

The record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 74-Rashi/-

[2025:RJ-JD:18100] (19 of 19) [CRLA-225/1995]

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)