Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 12 (MP)

Raju v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2015-01-05

SUBHASH KAKADE

body2015
ORDER : Subhash Kakade, J. This revision has been preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.9.2006, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 103/2005, whereby modifying the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Trial Court dated 27.6.2005, for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200. The prosecution story in brief is that on 20.5.1998 a written complaint was filed at Police Station, Mohangarh, District Tikamgarh, against the applicant, it is alleged that Smt. Mamta was performed marriage with the applicant before 5-6 years back and after the marriage at about 1½ years, the applicant was tortured to Smt. Mamta, who came back to her parents house. The complainant was tortured and beaten over there also and after completion of investigation the applicant was charge-sheeted. 2. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the evidence placed on record found the charges to be proved and eventually convicted the applicant and passed the order of sentence mentioned herein above. 3. Mr. Shashank Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the applicant had taken me through the entire evidence and submitted that the learned Courts below have committed error in holding the applicant guilty under Section 498A of IPC. 4. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions, omissions in depositions of interested prosecution witnesses. The learned Courts below erred in not appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and disbelieved the defence witnesses available on record. In view of the aforesaid, it is prayed that the revision be allowed and conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Trial Court may be set aside. 5. Per contra, Mr. P.K. Chourasiya, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has submitted that after due appreciation of prosecution evidence, the learned Trial Court has found the offence proved against the applicant, which requires no interference. 6. 5. Per contra, Mr. P.K. Chourasiya, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has submitted that after due appreciation of prosecution evidence, the learned Trial Court has found the offence proved against the applicant, which requires no interference. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, having gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below and statements of the prosecution witnesses, this Court is of the view that no error can be said have been committed by the learned Courts below in recording guilt of the applicant herein and in convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of IPC on the basis of evidence of the aforesaid witnesses. 7. The learned Courts below rightly come to the conclusion that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are of sterling quality and can be basis for conviction of the applicant and cannot be brush aside on this simple reason. No interference, therefore, is called for by this Court against the said finding of learned Courts below. 8. Other discrepancies which have been highlighted do not really earn the status of contraction to make the evidence of these witnesses impeachable, incredible or not beyond reproach. There is no justification, rhyme or reason that these witnesses would implicate the applicant. 9. The present revision, therefore, is liable to be dismissed on its merits. 10. Now, the question arises as to how a balance should be struck and maintained in regard to the sentence. 11. More than 16 years has been elapsed from the date of lodging the FIR i.e. 20.5.1998 and the incident is 5-6 years prior to lodging the FIR. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant now aged about 50 years was under custody from 15.7.1998 to 16.7.1998 during trial. After passing the impugned judgment dated 11.9.2006 he was brought under custody and released on bail by this Court vide order dated 18.10.2006. This way he has suffered almost 39 days actual imprisonment as against imprisonment of one year. The applicant is facing prosecution from last more than 16 years and at present he is running in his fifties. 12. After passing the impugned judgment dated 11.9.2006 he was brought under custody and released on bail by this Court vide order dated 18.10.2006. This way he has suffered almost 39 days actual imprisonment as against imprisonment of one year. The applicant is facing prosecution from last more than 16 years and at present he is running in his fifties. 12. Considering all the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that in the instant case the most appropriate sentence should be that the applicant-Raju should be sentenced for the period already undergone by him i.e. 39 days actual imprisonment as against he was punished for one year rigorous imprisonment. The applicant is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. In the result, the revision is allowed to the extent indicated above and the sentence is modified accordingly.