Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2509 (RAJ)

Banwari v. State of Rajasthan Through PP

2022-09-22

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2022
ORDER 1. Appellants have filed this appeal challenging the judgment & order dated 28.10.1986 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No.21/84, whereby appellants were convicted and sentenced for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants reads as under:- U/s 498-A IPC- Three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default payment of fine to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. U/s 306 IPC- Eight years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo nine months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Prosecution story in brief is that, Mathuram Saini lodged a report at Police Station-Kotwali on 21.08.1983 that his daughter was married to accused-appellant-Banwari Lal on 28.02.1981 and they used to harass for want of dowry. So, they had murdered her daughter. 3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, charge-sheet was presented against the accused appellants. 4. Charges were framed against the appellants under Sections 120-B, 498-A and 306 IPC and alternatively, 302 IPC was added. 5. In order to prove its case, during trial, prosecution examined 17 witnesses. appellants were examined under Section 313 Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prayed that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. Appellants examined two witnesses in his defence. 6. Learned trial Court vide judgment & order dated 28.10.1986, ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellants. Hence, the present appeal filed by the appellants. 7. During the pendency of appeal, appellant No.2-Dhansi Ram died. So, appeal is abated qua the said appellant. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal submits that the learned trial court had erred in ordering the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant No.1-Banwari Lal. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned trial Court had not read the prosecution evidence in right perspective. Learned counsel for the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal also submits that a bare perusal of the FIR, no allegation levelled against the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal for harassment of dowry. Learned counsel for the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal further submits that in FIR, only words used is ’Sasural wale’. No Specific allegation levelled against the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal. Learned counsel for the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal also submits that it is unbelievable that letters were written by deceased-Murti and envelop by the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal. Learned counsel for the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal further submits that in FIR, only words used is ’Sasural wale’. No Specific allegation levelled against the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal. Learned counsel for the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal also submits that it is unbelievable that letters were written by deceased-Murti and envelop by the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal. Learned counsel for the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal further submits that as per handwriting expert, it is not proved that these letters were written by deceased-Murti. Learned counsel for the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal also submits that the learned trial Court had not read the evidence of PW-9 Kanhaiyalal in right spirit because in his evidence clearly stated that no demand of dowry was made at the time of marriage. Learned counsel for the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal further submits that the letter (Ex.P-2) received by the complainant on 23.08.1983 and he had not lodged report immediately. Learned counsel for the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal also submits that the letter (Ex.P-2) revealed that it is created by one. So, appellant No.1-Banwari Lal be acquitted from the offence levelled against him. Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal further submits that the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal is facing trauma of trial since 1981. He has remained in custody about one year. So, in the interest of Justice, sentence of the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal be reduced to already undergone. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal and submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the learned trial Court. So, appeal be dismissed. 10. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 11. It is an admitted position that the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal is facing trauma of trial since 1981. He has remained in custody about one year. Learned Public Prosecutor has not submitted any previous conviction report of the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal. So, in the interest of Justice and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case. I deem it just and proper to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal to the period already undergone by him. 12. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal is ordered by the learned Court below is maintained. However, sentence qua imprisonment of the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal is reduced to the period already undergone by him. I deem it just and proper to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal to the period already undergone by him. 12. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal is ordered by the learned Court below is maintained. However, sentence qua imprisonment of the appellant No.1-Banwari Lal is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 13. Appellant No.1-Banwari Lal is directed to deposit the fine awarded by the learned trial Court within a period of one month. 14. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 15. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., appellant No.1-Banwari Lal is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, and a surety in the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against the judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.