Madhya Pradesh High Court
Galli @ Ram Swarooop vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 November, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.
Criminal Appeal No.925/2009
Galli @ Ram Swaroop
VERSUS
State of Madhya Pradesh
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Deepak Pendharkar, counsel for the appellant.
Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the State/
respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on the 6th day of November, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 24.4.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Maihar in S.T.No.147/2008, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and sentenced for 3 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, 3 months' rigorous imprisonment was also directed.
2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 16.5.2008 at about 6 a.m. in the morning, one Guddan @ Sushila, wife of the appellant had committed suicide by jumping before the train. A Panchayatnama Lash was
-:- 2 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.925 of 2009 prepared and dead-body of the deceased was sent for post- mortem. The parents and relatives of the deceased had stated about the harassment done by the appellant relating to dowry demand and therefore, the deceased committed suicide. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Maihar, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Satna and ultimately, it was transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Maihar.
3. The appellant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea in the case but, he has stated that he was falsely implicated in the matter. However, Satrughan Pyasi (D.W.1) and Kanhaiya Choudhary (D.W.2) were examined in defence to show that the mental condition of the deceased was not proper and she had tried to commit suicide in the past.
4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Maihar, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, acquitted the appellant from the charge of offence punishable under section 304-B IPC but, convicted him for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the
-:- 3 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.925 of 2009 appellant does not want to challenge the merits of the case. He has challenged the sentence directed against him. It was not directly connected that the deceased committed suicide due to harassment. Therefore, her death should not be counted while considering about the sentence. Looking to the overt-act of the appellant, whereas he remained in the custody for more than 1 year and 5 months. The appellant is a person, who has to maintain his family and therefore, his custody period of 17 months appears to be an appropriate sentence for the offence. Hence, it appears that it is a fit case, in which the jail sentence directed by the trial Court against the appellant should be reduced. However, some fine may be enhanced.
7. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby partly allowed. The conviction directed for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC is hereby maintained but, his sentence is reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody but, fine amount is enhanced from a sum of Rs.1,000/- to a sum of Rs.5,000/-. The appellant is directed to deposit the remaining fine amount before the trial Court within two months from today, failing which he shall undergo for 6 months' rigorous imprisonment.
-:- 4 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.925 of 2009
8. At present, the appellant is on bail. His Presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged.
9. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information and compliance.
(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 6/11/2012 Pushpendra