Uttarakhand High Court
Sunil Singh Negi And Others ... vs The State Of Uttarakhand on 6 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No.173 of 2016
Sunil Singh Negi and Others ............... Appellants
Versus
The State of Uttarakhand ... Respondent
Dated: 06.04.2021
Mrs. Manisha Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr. T.C. Aggarwal, learned Dy. A.G. for the State.
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
This criminal appeal, preferred by the appellant
u/s 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the
judgment and order dated 12.05.2016 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Kotdwar in Session Trial No.39
of 2012, State Vs. Sunil Singh Negi and S.T. No.3 of 2013,
State Vs. Jagmohan Singh Negi & another, whereby the
court below convicted the appellants u/s 304B IPC and
sentenced each one of them to undergo 10 years' rigorous
imprisonment and u/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act convicted
and sentenced each one of them to undergo 2 years'
rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/-.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Virender Singh
Kandari submitted information (Ex.Ka-1) with police
Station Rikhinikhal on 13.06.2012 that the marriage of his
daughter Kavita was solemnized with appellant-Sunil in the
month of February 2009 as per Hindu rites. After the
marriage she used to inform that the appellants were
harassing her for the demand of dowry. On 09.06.2012, the
appellants poured kerosene on here due to which the
deceased Kavita Devi passed away. On the basis of the
information, chick FIR (Ex.Ka-2) was lodged with Police
Station Rikhinikhal; Posts mortem (Ex.Ka-3) was prepared;
and, Inquest report (Ex.Ka-5) was also prepared. After
completion of the investigation, charge sheet (Ka-14) was
submitted and after compliance of provision of 207 Cr.P.C.,
the case was committed to the Sessions Judge.
3. The Trial Court took cognizance. Accordingly,
charges u/s 304-B and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act
and alternative charges u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC
were framed, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
3. To prove the prosecution story, PW-1 Virender
Singh Kandari (informant), PW2 Vidya Devi, PW3 Vishan
Lal, PW4 Dr. Mahesh Kumar Saini, PW5 Dr. Sunil Sharma,
PW6 Tehsildar Chhawan Singh, PW7 Mahender Singh, PW8
Jai Prakash Kohli, PW9 J.R. Verma were examined as
prosecution witnesses.
4. After completion of prosecution evidence,
statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. in which they stated that they have been falsely
implicated in the offence. In defence, no evidence either
documentary or oral was produced.
5. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial
Court convicted and sentenced the appellants, as
mentioned in para no.1 of the judgment above. Aggrieved
by it, the present appeal has been preferred.
6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and
perused the entire evidence available on the record.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellants fairly argued
that the conviction recorded by the trial Court is based on
evidence and there is no illegality in the impugned finding;
and she also does not want to lay any challenge on the
same she only confined her prayer to the extent that the
sentence awarded to the appellants by the trial court may
be reduced to some extent; the reasons assigned for such a
prayer are that - the appellant-Jagmohan Singh and Munni
Devi are in-laws; both are old and infirm; appellant-
Jagmohan Singh is also suffering from cancer; appellant-
Sunil Singh Negi is the only bread earner in the family; and
lastly, submitted that there was no motive to commit the
murder of the deceased because the trial Court has
acquitted the appellants u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC;
it is also submitted that the minimum punishment
prescribed u/s 304B IPC is seven years while the trial
Court sentenced them ten years punishment; the
appellants have already served more than six years in
prison, accordingly, the sentence may be reduced. Learned
counsel for the appellants also placed reliance on the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of
Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (2007) 9 SCC 433.
8. The appellants have already served more than
six years in imprisonment and appellants Jagmohan and
Munni Devi are in-laws; they are old and infirm; apart from
that, Jagmohan Singh is a cancer patient.
9. After considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it
would be just and proper to reduce the sentence of the
appellant to seven years' R.I. instead of ten years' R.I., as
awarded by the trial Court.
10. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the appeal
preferred by the appellants is partly allowed with the
following directions: -
A. The conviction part of the appellants, as awarded by
the Trial Court is maintained.
B. The appellants are sentenced to seven years' R.I.
instead of ten years' R.I. u/s 304-B IPC.
C. The sentence awarded to the appellants by the Trial
Court u/s 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is maintained.
D. The fine as imposed by the Trial Court will remain
unchanged. The appellants shall deposit the fine, which
shall be a condition precedent for their release.
E. All the sentences will run concurrently.
11. The appellants shall now undergo the sentence,
as modified by this Court. However, the period already
undergone by them shall be adjusted from the records as
per rules.
12. Registry is directed to forthwith transmit the
record of this case along with a copy of this judgment for
onwards compliance.
13. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.)
06.04.2021
