Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 518 (MP)

Raju v. State of M. P.

2013-04-16

N.K.GUPTA

body2013
JUDGMENT : The applicant is convicted for offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C vide judgment dated 1.10.1997 passed by the JMFC, Bhaisdehi, District Betul in Criminal Case No.447/1994 and he was sentenced for two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/-. In Criminal Appeal No.65/1997 the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Betul vide judgment dated 7.7.1999 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments the applicant has preferred the present revision. 2. The prosecution's case in short is that the complainant Laxmi Bai (PW1) was the wife of the applicant who had lodged an FIR Ex.P/1 on 13.12.1994 that the applicant was in habit to harass her for payment of dowry and he committed cruelty with her. After due investigation a charge sheet was filed. 3. The applicant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea in the case but he has stated that he was innocent. In defence Balaji (DW2) was examined. 4. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties the learned JMFC, Bhaisdehi convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above whereas appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed in toto. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that various witnesses who attended the Panchayat did not support that there was any demand of dowry from the side of the applicant. In the alternate it is submitted that the complainant has entered into a second marriage without getting any divorce from the applicant. The applicant has faced this trial, appeal and revision since last 16 years. He remained in the custody for approximately 43 days. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that his sentence may be reduced to the period which he has already undergone in the custody. 7. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the testimony of Laxmi Bai (PW1) was duly corroborated by Yadorao (PW2), Shyamrao (PW3) and Babarao (PW4). It is also true that witnesses Sitaram (PW5), Chindhuji (PW6) and Krishnarao (PW9) did not support the prosecution's story. However, Kirshnarao has stated that a Panchayat took place between the parties and he attended the Panchayat. However, he has stated that there was no discussion relating to dowry demand in that Panchayat. It is also true that witnesses Sitaram (PW5), Chindhuji (PW6) and Krishnarao (PW9) did not support the prosecution's story. However, Kirshnarao has stated that a Panchayat took place between the parties and he attended the Panchayat. However, he has stated that there was no discussion relating to dowry demand in that Panchayat. The defence witness Balaji (DW1) has stated that in that Panchayat, Uttamrao has accepted that there was no dispute between the parties and Baburao, who was brother-in-law of the complainant, has given such type of complaint without any basis. However, the evidence of the defence witness Balaji cannot be accepted because no such suggestion was given to the witness Krishnarao (PW9). Under such circumstances, it is apparent that a Panchayat took place between the parties because there was allegation of harassment from the side of the applicant. 8. According to the statements given by the various witnesses, it appears that the complainant was kept in a room meant for cattles and she was not provided with food etc. in the house of the applicant. It is also proved that the applicant was in habit to assault the victim on and often. Under such circumstances, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court has rightly convicted the applicant for offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. There is no basis by which any interference can be done in the conviction directed by the trial Court. 9. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is true that the applicant was a youth of 25 years of age at the time of incident. He has faced the trial, appeal and revision for the last 16 years. He remained in the custody for 43 days. At present the complainant has already married with some one else. Under such circumstances, it is would be proper to reduce the sentence directed against the applicant to the period for which he has already undergone in the custody, by enhancement of the fine amount. 10. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion the revision filed by the applicant is partly allowed. The conviction under Section 498-A of I.P.C is maintained but, the sentence is reduced to the period which he has already undergone in the custody. However, the fine amount is enhanced from a sum of Rs.200/- to a sum of Rs.5000/-. 10. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion the revision filed by the applicant is partly allowed. The conviction under Section 498-A of I.P.C is maintained but, the sentence is reduced to the period which he has already undergone in the custody. However, the fine amount is enhanced from a sum of Rs.200/- to a sum of Rs.5000/-. The applicant is directed to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court within two months from today failing which he shall undergo six months rigorous imprisonment in default. 11. At present the applicant is on bail. His presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged after deposit of the fine amount. 12. Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court and the appellate Court along with the records for information and compliance.