Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 562 (MP)

Laxmi Bai v. State of M. P.

2012-06-18

N.K.GUPTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 23/2/2012 passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in ST No.172/2011 by which the appellants were convicted for commission of offence punishable under section 498A of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine amount, an additional RI for three months was directed. 2. Prosecution case, in short, is that in the year 2007 deceased Uma who was resident of Village Harrakheda, M.P. was married with the appellant Surendra Kumar. She remained with Surendra Kumar for sometime at Delhi. Thereafter it is alleged that she was thrown out from the house and she was residing in Village Harrakheda for one and half years prior to her death. In August, 2010 she shifted to the house of her sister Nirmala, who was residing at Panwati Colony, Nishatpura, Bhopal. On 10.9.2010 at about 12 to 4 p.m. deceased Uma committed suicide and therefore a case was registered for commission of offence punishable under section 302 or 304B of IPC along with offence under section 498A of IPC. 3. The appellants-accused abjured their guilt. A plea was taken by the appellants that the deceased was residing with her sister and there was no case of recent harassment to her from the side of the appellants. She was adamant with her husband to reside with her at Bhopal in a separate house, and therefore appellants were not responsible for her death. However, no defence evidence was adduced by the appellants. 4. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal acquitted the appellants-accused for commission of offence punishable under section 302 or 304B of IPC, but convicted them for commission of offence punishable under section 498A of IPC and inflicted the aforesaid sentence. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are sentenced for one year’s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-. The appellants have deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. Appellant Laxmibai remained in custody from 24.12.2010 to 8.8.2011 whereas appellant Surendra Kumar remained in custody from 19.1.2011 to 23.8.2011. Thereafter they are in custody since 23.2.2012. Under such circumstances, the appellants have already undergone their custody for almost 11 months. The appellants have deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. Appellant Laxmibai remained in custody from 24.12.2010 to 8.8.2011 whereas appellant Surendra Kumar remained in custody from 19.1.2011 to 23.8.2011. Thereafter they are in custody since 23.2.2012. Under such circumstances, the appellants have already undergone their custody for almost 11 months. The deceased left the house of the appellants by her own. She did not lodge any FIR for harassment done by the appellants and she committed suicide due to reasons best known to her and her sister. Since she was residing at Bhopal and working in an Agarbatti Factory, her reason for committing suicide was not at all connected with the behaviour done by the appellants at Delhi, and therefore learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants from the charges of offence punishable under section 304B of IPC. Under such circumstances, there were no possibility of harassment to the deceased from the side of the appellants. Looking to the custody period, appellants do not want to challenge their conviction, but they pray that their jail sentence may be reduced to the period which they have already undergone in the custody. 7. After considering the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants, it is true that the deceased was residing at Bhopal in her sister’s house and prior to her death, she did not lodge any FIR against the appellants. Under such circumstances, the overt-act of the appellants appears to be not so grave so that they may be sentenced for such a lengthy period. Looking to their custody period, it would be proper to reduce their sentence to the period which they have already undergone in the custody. 8. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the appeal of the present appellants is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants directed for commission of offence punishable under section 498A of IPC is hereby maintained, but their jail sentence is reduced to the period which they have already undergone in the custody. 9. At present the appellants are in custody, therefore an appropriate warrant be issued in this regard so that the appellants may be released forthwith.