Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 893 (RAJ)

Rajendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2005-03-22

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant criminal appeal under Section 374 (2), CrPC, the accused-appellant has challenged the impugned Judgment and order dated 26.02.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur, Camp Salumber (for short, “the trial Court” hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 28/2003, by which the learned trial Court convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A, IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for four years’ and a fine of Rs.500/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days’ simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 306, IPC, and two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days under Section 498-A, IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that PW-2 Kishan Lal lodged a written report on 07.02.2002 with Police Station, Jawar Mines against the accused-appellants stating therein that the marriage of her daughter Deu took place with accused-appellant Rajendra Kumar before three years. The appellant, his parents and brothers used to harass her for demand of dowry. They demanded a sum of Rs.30,000/-from the complainant for starting cloth business by the accused-appellant and on refusal, they gave beatings to her at the time of her pregnancy. After living for two years at her parental house, a compromise took place and she was sent to her in-laws, house. Thereafter, Smt. Deu was killed by the members of her in-laws. After investigation, the police filed challan. The trial Court framed charges against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B, IPC. After hearing the arguments and appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court, vide impugned Judgment and order dated 26.02.2004, acquitted accused Badri Lal, Naresh Kumar, Lalit Kumar, Smt. Kamla and Geeta Devi of the aforesaid offences; however, convicted and sentenced accused-appellant Rajendra Kumar for the offences under Sections 306, 306 and 498-A, IPC and acquitted him of the offence under Section 304-B, IPC 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the impugned Judgment and order and carefully gone through the record of the case. 4. At the very out-set, learned Counsel for the appellant has given up the challenge to the order of conviction and confined his arguments to the question of sentence. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the impugned Judgment and order and carefully gone through the record of the case. 4. At the very out-set, learned Counsel for the appellant has given up the challenge to the order of conviction and confined his arguments to the question of sentence. It has been contended that the maximum sentence awarded by the trial Court is four years’ rigorous imprisonment and the appellant has already undergone the imprisonment for more than three years, as such the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant. 5. There is unimpeachable evidence of PW-2 Kishan Lal, PW-4 Smt. Lehri Bai and PW-7 Bhanwar Lal to the effect that right from the date of marriage till death, the deceased was subjected to gruel and cruel treatment. She was given beatings even during her pregnancy period and had to remain in her parental house for about 1½ years. There is further evidence of these witnesses to the effect that even after compromise when the deceased was sent to her in-laws house, the gruel and cruel treatment of the accused-appellant towards the deceased did not come to an end. In this view of the material evidence on record, the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court regarding guilt of the appellant is based on proper appreciation of evidence giving cogent and convincing reasons and the same is herby confirmed. There is hardly any scope to challenge the conviction and, therefore, the learned Counsel for the appellant has rightly not challenged it. 6. So far as substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court is concerned, the appellant has remained in jail for a period of more than three years during investigation, trial and appeal. In Randhir Singh & Anr., AIR 2004 SC 5097 , the accused therein was found guilty of the offence under Section 306, IPC and the Hon’ble Supreme Court reduced the custodial sentence to three years. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met in case the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. 7. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met in case the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. 7. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned Judgment and order of conviction dated 26.02.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur, Camp Salumber in Sessions Case No. 28/2003 is confirmed. However, the sentence awarded to accused-appellants Rajendra Kumar S/o Badri Lal Darji for the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A, IPC is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. The appellant is in jail and he be set at liberty, if not required in any other case. The application for suspension of sentence stands disposed of .