Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1218 (MP)

Bhailal v. State of M. P.

2012-11-27

ALOK ARADHE

body2012
Judgment By the impugned judgment dated 28th January, 1998 passed by Sessions Judge, Panna in Sessions Trial No.50/1996, the appellant has been convicted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. The prosecution case in short is that the deceased Badibahu was married with the appellant in the year 1996. In the night of 7.5.1996, the deceased was missing from her house. The appellant made a search however, he could not find her, thereafter, he lodged FIR on 11.5.1996. During course of the investigation, the body of the deceased was found in a well belonging to one Jhalle Tiwari. According to prosecution case, the appellant used to harass and beat the deceased and had demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of dowry, as a result of which she committed suicide. The police after completion of the investigation filed the charge-sheet against the appellant for offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, acquitted the appellant for offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as aforesaid. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant during course of his arguments submitted that he is not challenging the finding in so far as it relates to commission of offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the appellant is a labourer and has remained in jail for a period of fifty one days. 4. In view of the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the only question which survives for consideration is as to what sentence has to be awarded to the appellant to meet ends of justice. The appellant is a labourer. He has remained in jail for a period of fifty one days i.e. from 17.5.1996 to 6.7.1996. The trial Court has found that the prosecution was not able to prove that the deceased committed suicide. 5. The incident had taken place on 7.5.1996. The appellant is a labourer. He has remained in jail for a period of fifty one days i.e. from 17.5.1996 to 6.7.1996. The trial Court has found that the prosecution was not able to prove that the deceased committed suicide. 5. The incident had taken place on 7.5.1996. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant back to jail again. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed on the appellant under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and instead award the sentence to the appellant for a period of imprisonment already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine is affirmed. 6. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, the appeal is partly allowed.