Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1066 (MP)

Narendra Kumar Jain v. State of M. P.

2014-08-26

S.K.GANGELE, S.K.PALO

body2014
JUDGMENT S.K. Gangele, J. 1. The learned VII Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Gohad, District Bhind in Sessions Trial No. 147 of 2006 pronouncing the judgment on 31st July, 2007 held the non-applicant No. 2 Kamal Kumar Jain and non-applicant No. 3 Neeraj Kumar Jain guilty for the offences under Sections 304B & 498A of IPC, however, did not sentence them under Section 498A of IPC following the law laid down in Shanti & Another vs. State of Haryana, (1991) 1 SCC 371 and sentenced the accused/non-applicants No. 2 & 3, rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years each under Section 304B of IPC. 2. The petitioner has filed this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. for enhancing the sentence. 3. The petitioner is the father of the deceased Monika who was married to non-applicant No. 3 Neeraj Kumar Jain on 23.05.2005. Non applicant No. 2 Kamal Kumar Jain is the father of non-applicant No. 3 Neeraj Kumar. Monika died due to hanging on 28.07.2005 i.e., within two months and 5 days of her marriage. 4. Brief facts just necessary for disposal of this revision is that Monika Jain wife of non-applicant No. 3, Neeraj was brought to the hospital Bhind on 28.07.2005 by her husband. She was brought dead. The cause of death was hanging. Dr. J.S. Yadav of District Hospital, Bhind sent a letter to the Police Station City Kotwali, Bhind. On the basis of which, merg No. 29/2005 was registered. 5. During the inquiry, it was found that Monika was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry by her father-in-law non-applicant No. 2 and other persons of the family, including her husband non applicant No. 3. Because of this cruelty she committed suicide. 6. Crime No. 295/2005 under Section 304B/34 of IPC was registered against the non-applicants No. 2 & 3 and other family members. Charge sheet was filed after due investigation under Section 304B, 498A of IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Rajni Jain, Asha Jain and Akash Jain were shown as absconded. Charge-sheet was filed against non-applicants No. 2 & 3. Charges framed and explained to them. They abjured guilt and pleaded false implication. Charge sheet was filed after due investigation under Section 304B, 498A of IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Rajni Jain, Asha Jain and Akash Jain were shown as absconded. Charge-sheet was filed against non-applicants No. 2 & 3. Charges framed and explained to them. They abjured guilt and pleaded false implication. After adducing evidence, the learned trial Court found that the deceased Monika hanged herself and committed suicide because she was subjected to cruelty soon before her death for demand of dowry by the non-applicants No. 2 & 3 and sentenced them as mentioned above. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of sentence, the father of the deceased claimed that the sentence imposed is highly inadequate and dis-proportionate to the offence. It is submitted that Monika was highly educated, young and beautiful girl. At the time of her marriage, her father had given sufficient dowry according to his capability, however, the accused persons (non-applicants No. 2 & 3) were not satisfied and on their demand another Rs. 50,000/- was given. Even then, they were constantly subjected Monika to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry, resulting her unnatural death. Therefore, the sentence awarded is highly inadequate and requested to award life imprisonment to non-applicants No. 2 and 3, so that ends of justice be served in the circumstances of this case. 8. We heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 9. In Rafat Mian vs. State reported in : 1987 (2) Crimes 873 (All), it has been held that in appropriate cases, the High Court may issue notice for enhancement of sentence to the accused. 10. In these circumstances, the revision can be admitted on the point of sentence only, that means the legality of the proceedings and its merits is not opened to this Court to reconsider in its entirety. 11. In enhancement of sentence, the following guidelines has to be considered, which reads as under:- (i) The power of issuing Rule for enhancement suo motu exists even under the new Code. (ii) The power is however to be exercised sparingly and with great restraint. (iii) This power ought to be exercised on reaching a prima facie satisfaction that the case demands enhancement of sentence. (ii) The power is however to be exercised sparingly and with great restraint. (iii) This power ought to be exercised on reaching a prima facie satisfaction that the case demands enhancement of sentence. (iv) In arriving at the aforesaid satisfaction, the reasons given by the trial Court, if any, in awarding the sentence as imposed by it should also be borne in mind. (v) The non-preferring of appeal by the Central or the State Government against the sentence awarded may not be a good ground to refuse to issue Rule of enhancement, if the Court is otherwise satisfied about the need to issue the Rule. (vi) Whether ultimately the High Court would award the enhanced sentence ought not to be a relevant consideration while issuing Rule of enhancement. (vii) Extreme caution has to be exercised in issuing a Rule of enhancement in a case which makes the convict liable to be punished to death. 12. In the light of the above, the present case is considered. The punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 304B of IPC is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. 13. The learned Trial Court in the present case has sentenced rigorous imprisonment to the accused persons/non-applicant No. 2 & 3 for a period of 10 years each. 14. The reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court for imposing the sentence has to be kept in mind that the non-applicant No. 2 & 3 have no criminal antecedents. They are first offenders. The accused/non applicant No. 2 is 57 years old and the co-accused/non-applicant No. 3 is 29 years old. Having said so, the learned Trial Court has also observed that keeping in view the increase in the number of similar offences a strict view is adopted and the accused persons are sentenced for 10 years rigorous imprisonment each. 15. The quantum of punishment awarded by the learned Trial Court, in our consideration is sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, we decline to interfere with the same and dis-allow the present revision.