Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 95 (MP)

Bhurelal Rajak v. State of M. P.

2011-01-21

G.S.SOLANKI

body2011
JUDGMENT : G.S. Solanki , J.- The Vith Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur passed the impugned judgment dated 21.06.96 in S.T. No. 317/95 by which theappellants/accused have been convicted under Section 498-A of I.P.C. andsentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year each and fine of Rs . 500/-, in default Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months. 2.Being aggrieved the appellants/accused have preferred this appeal under Section374(2) of Cr.P.C . 3.It is admitted fact of the case that during the pendency of this appeal complainant Makhanlal and his wife Smt . Meerabai (father and motherof deceased Urmila Bai )have entered into the compromise with the appellants and filed an applicationto seek permission to compound the offence. Since, offence under Section 498-Aof IPC is not compoundable, therefore their application was dismissed. 4.The prosecution case in short is that marriage of deceased Urmila Bai was solemnized with Arjun Rajak , son of appellants/ accused before 11/2 yearsof the incident. 5.As per allegations of Meerabai ( P.W.S) and Makhanlal (P.W.6),(mother and father of deceased Urmila Bai ) respectively, after two months of marriageappellants/accused have demanded a scooter. It is also alleged that wheneverdeceased Urmila Bai wassent to her parental home she was directed by the appellants that she could notcome back without the scooter. In this way, appellants committed the cruelty inrelation to dowry on the deceased Urmila Bai , therefore she committed suicide on 7.11.94 by pouring the kerosene oil over herbody. 6.On information of incident, a marg was registered inPolice Station Ghamapur and after enquiry offence wasregistered against the appellants. The dead body ofdeceased Urmila Bai wassent for post-mortem examination to Medical College , Jabalpur . Dr. D.K.Sakle (P.W.8) performed the autopsy on the body of deceased Urmila Bai and opined that she was died due to the shock ofburn injuries and prepared the postmortem report( Ex.P-14). During investigation a spot map( Ex. P-4) wasprepared. 7.The appellants were arrested and after usual investigation they werecharge-sheeted. 8.Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges against the appellants/accused under Sections 304-8,306 and 498-Aofl.P.C. 9.The appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence. 10.After appraisal of evidence of record, learned Additional Sessions Judgeacquit-te4 the appellants from the charges under Sections 304-8,306 of I.P.C.however, they have been convicted under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced asmentioned herein above. Hence, this appeal. 8.Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges against the appellants/accused under Sections 304-8,306 and 498-Aofl.P.C. 9.The appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence. 10.After appraisal of evidence of record, learned Additional Sessions Judgeacquit-te4 the appellants from the charges under Sections 304-8,306 of I.P.C.however, they have been convicted under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced asmentioned herein above. Hence, this appeal. 11.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that looking to the evidence on record, he is not challenging the conviction recorded by thetrial Court. He further submitted that the age of appellant no. 1 is about 77years and age of appellant no. 2 is 76 years. He also submitted thatcomplainant Makhanlal and his wife Meerabai (father and mother of deceased Urmila Bai ) have also entered into compromise with these oldappellants and they did not want to prosecute them further. In thesecircumstances, end of justice would be met out if they be sentenced to jailsentence of already undergone and fine may be enhanced. 12.Learned counsel for the State also has no objection to the contention raised bythe learned counsel for the appellants. 13.I have perused the record and found that at the time of incident appellants no. 1 and 2 were aged about 61 years and 60 yearsrespectively. In these circumstances, they are very old aged person and at thistime approximately they are aged about 77 years and 76 years respectively.Considering the fact that mother and father of deceased Urmila Bai also entered into the compromise with theappellants. Therefore, aforesaid old aged persons are not required to sent in jail after a lapse of 16 years. 14.In these circumstances, appeal is partly allowed. Conviction passed by trialCourt against the appellants under Section 498-A of I.P.C. is hereby affirmedand the sentence is altered in the following way:- " appellants are sentenced, for jail sentence (from 5.12.94 to9.12.94) of already undergone and fine of Rs .52,500/-each. In default of fine further Simple Imprisonment for 15 days." 15.Record of the trial Court be sent back along with thecopy of judgment for compliance and necessary action. 16.The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged.