Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Deepak Sahu vs State Of M.P. on 22 August, 2014

1                                              Cr.R.No.275/2012

              Deepak Sahu & others Vs. State of M.P.

21.8.2014
        Shri Mahesh Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners.
        Ms.Nutan Saxena, PP for the respondent/State.

Shri J.S.Kushwah, Advocate for the complainant. Petitioner No.1 Deepak Sahu and the complainant Smt.Manorama Sahu are present in the Court.

1. The demand draft No.26105305 amounting to Rs.6,50,000/- is handed over by the petitioner Deepak Sahu to Smt.Manorama Sahu.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that parties have settled their dispute and filed a compromise petition, which has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court on 25.7.2014. Learned counsel submits that he does not wish to challenge the conviction of the petitioners under Section 498-A of IPC. He only prays that in view of the compromise in between the parties the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court be set aside. He further submitted that petitioner No.1 Deepak Sahu and petitioner No.4 Arvind Kumar Sahu have undergone 15 days sentence and petitioner No.2 Anand Prakash, petitioner No.3 Smt.Shantidevi and petitioner No.5 Smt.Seema Sahu have undergone eight days, hence he prayed that undergone sentence is sufficient to meet the ends of justice.

3. With the consent of parties heard the revision petition finally.

4. This revision petition has been preferred under Section 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved with the judgment passed by 3rd 2 Cr.R.No.275/2012 Addl.Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Cri.Appeal No.646/2011 on 12.1.2012, whereby the conviction of the petitioners under Section 498-A of IPC and sentence of one year RI and fine of Rs.1,000/- each has been affirmed.

5. According to the prosecution case, marriage of the complainant Manorama was solemnized on 16.11.2005. After marriage husband Deepak, father-in-law Anand Prakash, mother- in-law Smt.Shantidevi, brother-in-law (Jeth) Arvind Kumar Sahu and sister-in-law (Jethani) Smt.Seemadevi used to demand dowry and due to non-fulfillment of the demand they started harassing the complainant. The complainant filed the complaint before the Parivar Paramarsh Kendra. On the basis of the complaint compromise took place before the Paramarsh Samiti. Thereafter, the complainant has gone with her husband, but again the in-laws started harassing her and also tried to set her on fire by pouring kerosene. The report was lodged by Manorama, which was registered at Crime No.63/2008. After due investigation the charge sheet was filed. The learned trial Court recorded the evidence and after appreciating the evidence and material convicted the petitioners under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced as mentioned above. Being aggrieved the petitioners have challenged their conviction before the learned appellate Court. The appellate Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court. Being aggrieved the petitioners have preferred this criminal revision.

6. During pendency of this petition parties have settled their dispute amicably and filed a compromise petition, which has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he does not wish to challenge the conviction of the petitioners. He prays that considering the compromise between the parties a lenient view be taken.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the conviction.

8. I have perused the record. From perusal of the statements of Manorama (PW-1), Harinivas (PW-2), Meeradevi (PW-3), Yogesh Kumar Sahu (PW-4),have stated that after marriage the complainant was harassed by the in-laws in connection with demand of cash of Rs.2,00,000/-. They further stated that the complainant was turned out from her matrimonial home. From the Ex.D/1 it also appears that the complainant has filed an application before Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, Gwalior. The compromise took place and the complainant has gone to her matrimonial home. However, from the testimony of Manorama (P-1), Harinivas (PW-2), Meeradevi (PW-3), Yogesh Kumar Sahu (PW-4), it appears that the petitioners have started harassing the complainant and also attempted to set her on fire by pouring kerosene on her by closing the room. There is nothing in the cross-examination of the witnesses upon which their testimony can be held to be doubtful.

9. Considering the aforesaid evidence conviction of the petitioners is well founded and there is no scope for any interference. Hence, conviction of the petitioners is hereby affirmed.

So far as sentence is concerned, it appears that parties have settled their dispute amicably. The complainant and her husband have also compromised and on the basis of the compromise a decree of divorce granted by the Family Court, Gwalior in Case No.220-A/2011 under Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act has been modified in view of the settlement between the husband and wife. From the record it also appears that petitioner No.1 Deepak Sahu and petitioner No.4 Arvind Kumar Sahu remained in custody for fifteen days and petitioners No.2, 3 and 5 remained in custody for eight days.

10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and further that there is no previous conviction against the petitioners, the ends of justice would met if the petitioner are sentenced to the period already undergone by them.

11. Consequently, this revision petition is partly allowed. While affirming the conviction under Section 498-A of IPC the jail sentence is set aside. Petitioner are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. So far as the sentence of fine is concerned, no interference is required.

The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

(D.K.Paliwal) Judge Patil