Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 402 (UTT)

Santosh Singh v. State of Uttaranchal

2019-07-15

R.C.KHULBE

body2019
JUDGMENT : R.C. KHULBE, J. 1. This appeal, preferred by the appellant u/s 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No.36 of 2004, State v. Santosh Singh, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant Santosh Singh under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as I.P.C.) and sentenced him to undergo three years' R.I. with fine of Rs.3,000/-; he was further convicted u/s 498-A/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo two years' imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, along with default stipulation in both the sections. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Facts, in nutshell, are that PW1 Ram Ratan Singh lodged an FIR on 27.3.2004 at 4 PM with the averments that his daughter Aruna Devi was married to the appellant on 28th February, 2000. Out of the wedlock, two children were born. It is mainly alleged in the FIR that the appellant Santosh Singh along with co-accused Smt. Ujala Devi (mother-in-law) used to harass the daughter of complainant on the pretext of bringing lesser dowry. Two months prior to incident, a Black & White Television was given but even then, the greed of the accused was not satisfied. In the night of 25.3.2004, appellant Santosh Singh gave a telephonic call to the informant that his daughter along with her 11/2 year child has gone somewhere. In the morning of 26.3.2004, the informant along with the appellant went in search of the victim along with other people of village. The dead body of the victim was found at the bank of river. 3. The post-mortem (Ex.Ka-2) on the body of deceased was conducted wherein as many as 03 injuries were noticed. The cause of death was opined due to antemortem drowning resulting in asphyxia and death. 4. The matter was investigated and after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant and his mother Ujjla Devi u/s 498A and 304B IPC. 5. The case was, accordingly, committed the case to the court of Sessions after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. 6. Learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal framed the charge against the appellant and co-accused Ujjala Devi u/s 498-A/34 and 304-B/34 IPC. 5. The case was, accordingly, committed the case to the court of Sessions after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. 6. Learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal framed the charge against the appellant and co-accused Ujjala Devi u/s 498-A/34 and 304-B/34 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the appellant and co-accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 Ram Ratan Singh (complainant and father of deceased), PW2 Smt. Laxmi Devi (sister in law of deceased), PW3 Dr. Narendra Dutt, who conducted the autopsy, PW4 Mohan Singh, Patwari, who performed the initial investigation and PW5 Darshan Lal Chitran, Dy. S.P. who conducted the investigation and submitted the chargesheet against the accused. 8. Thereafter, the statement of the appellant was recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. who denied the allegations made against him. However, he did not produce any oral or documentary evidence in defence. 9. After appreciating the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, vide the judgment, under challenge, has convicted and sentenced the appellant, as afore-stated. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed. 10. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence available on the record. 11. Mr. DCS Rawat, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant fairly submits that the conviction of the appellant, as recorded by the Court below under Sections 306/34 and 498A/34 is perfectly justified as per the evidence recorded before the trial court and he also does not want lay any challenge on the same; he only confined his prayer to the extent that the sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court may be reduced to the sentence already undergone by him. The reasons shown for such a prayer are that appellant is the sole bread earner in the family; there are two minor children of him whom he has to look after; 15 years have elapsed since the incident took place; and lastly, the appellant was sentenced for three years' rigorous imprisonment, out of which, he has already served 2 years 3 months and 11 days. A report to this extent, sent by the Jailor, District Jail, Pauri has been produced today in the Court by learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 12. A report to this extent, sent by the Jailor, District Jail, Pauri has been produced today in the Court by learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 12. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it would be just and proper to reduce the sentence of the appellant to that of already undergone by him i.e. 2 years, 3 months and 11 days. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal preferred by the appellant Santosh Singh is partly allowed. The conviction part of the appellant under Sections 306/34 and 498/34 I.P.C is left intact. However, the sentence of imprisonment, awarded to the appellant by the Court below, is hereby reduced to the sentence which has already been undergone by him i.e. 2 years, 3 months and 11 days. The appellant, however, shall deposit the fine, as imposed upon him by the Court below. 14. A copy of this judgment and order along with the LCR be sent to the Court below.