Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1786 (ALL)

RAJIV MADAN v. STATE OF U P

2008-08-26

SURENDRA SINGH

body2008
SURENDRA SINGH, J. This revision has been filed against the judgment and, order dated, 5. 8. 2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Saharanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 23/2007. 2. By the aforesaid appeal the Addi tional Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the revisionist, under sections 498-A and 406 IPC. 3. In short the allegations against the revisionist are that the complainant Smt. Achala Madan was married with the revi sionist on 13. 4. 1995. At the time of mar riage the parents of the victim have spent sufficient amount according to their capa bility. It has further been alleged that soon after the marriage, the revisionist, the hus band of the victim, Ram Prakash, the fa ther-in-law, Smt. Santosh, the Mother- in-law and Sangita, the Nanad of the victim started causing harassment to the victim for fulfilment of dowry and even on several occasions she was beaten badly and caused injuries by the aforesaid members of in-laws, for want of a Marati car or a Hero Honda motorcycle. The First Information Report regarding to the incident which took place on 13. 4. 1995 was lodged on 18. 5. 1998 at about 12. 20 p. m. It was alleged in the FIR that on the date of incident at about 11. 00 a. m. the husband of the infor mant, Sri Rajiv Madan (the revisionist), father-in-law, Sri Ram Prakash and Sri Sat-pal Papneja (Nandoi of the victim) along with three other unknown persons came to the house of the informant and asked her to fulfil the demand of Rs. 50, 000/- and get the matter settled for ever. On this, the fa ther and brother of the informant as well as persons who came from her side agreed with their offer with the condition, that en tire Stridhan, ornaments, clothes and other things to be returned back to her and si multaneously maintenance allowance to the some extent be given for her minor son. It is further alleged that on hearing the aforesaid condition laid down by the guardians of the informant, the members of in-laws became infuriated and annoyed and refused to accept any term and condi tion, rather they threatened them with the dire consequences. 4. It is further alleged that on hearing the aforesaid condition laid down by the guardians of the informant, the members of in-laws became infuriated and annoyed and refused to accept any term and condi tion, rather they threatened them with the dire consequences. 4. The prosecution has examined Smt. Achala Madan as PW-1, Dinesh, the brother of Achala Madan as PW-2, Satish, the brother of the victim as PW-3, Ravi Kant Luthara as PW-4, H. C. P. Devendra Kumar as PW-5, Constable Ravi Karan Singh PW-6 in support of charges leveled against the revisionist punishable under sections 498-A, 406, 506 IPC. 5. The accused revisionist denied the charges and claimed false implications. 6. The Trial Court believed the wit nesses of the fact and finding the prosecu tion case proved to the hilt and convicted him under section 498-A IPC and awarded sentence of 6 months Rigorous Imprison ment. The revisionist was further convicted and sentenced under section 406 IPC for 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- to the revisionist and in de fault of payment of fine to undergo six months further simple imprisonment. 7. I have heard Sri Anurag Pathak, Advocate, in support of this revision and learned AGA in opposition. 8. Learned Counsel for the revision ist did not question the legality of the re corded conviction and conceded that the finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below are correct. He however, addressed only on the question of sentence by con tending that the incident has occurred more than one decade ago and to send the revisionist to jail after such a long gap, no useful purpose will be served. He further submitted that the revisionist does not have any criminal history or bad antecedent and hence he should have been given benefit of section 360 Cr. P. C. He also submitted that there is no medical evidence. He therefore, conclusively pleaded that the conviction of the revisionist be substituted with the im prisonment already undergone with impos ing of to be paid to the victim. 9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and the learned AGA, I find force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist. He therefore, conclusively pleaded that the conviction of the revisionist be substituted with the im prisonment already undergone with impos ing of to be paid to the victim. 9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and the learned AGA, I find force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist. In my view the revisionist has already served about more than 15 days imprisonment and therefore, I consider it appropriate to set aside the re maining period of imprisonment awarded by both the Courts below with a fine which I quantify as Rs. 10, 000/- (ten thousand) to be paid by the revisionist out of which Rs. 8000/- shall be paid as compensation to the victim Smt. Achala Madan for the harass ment and mental agony suffered by her. 10. Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed while remaining the conviction of the revisionist, I alter the sentence by re moving the remaining part of the impris onment of the revisionist to a fine of Rs. 10, 000/- to be realised from him. In case, any amount has already been deposited by the revisionist in compliance of the judgment and order of the Courts below, shall be adjusted. 11. The revisionist is directed to be released from jail on deposit of the said amount of fine. As soon as the fine is de posited, the Trial Court shall summon the victim, Smt. Achala Madan or her nearest successor by noticing her/him and shall hand over the amount as mentioned above, as compensation to her. In the event of de fault in depositing the fine, the revisionist shall serve out the sentence under chal lenge. The revision is partly allowed. Revision Partly Allowed. .