Bundele vs State of U.P.

Akhtar Husain Khan, J.—Present appeal has been filed by accused appellants Bundele, Kailasha Devi and Smt. Kala Devi under section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against judgement and order dated 27.11.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. No. 3, Basti in Session Trial No. 232 of 1998 (State v. Bundele and others) under sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chhawani, District Basti whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted accused appellants for offences punishable under section 498A, 304-B, 201 IPC and section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act and has sentenced each of them for offence under section 304-B IPC to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, for offence under section 498-A IPC to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, for offence under section 201 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with fine of Rs. 500/- and for offence under section 4 D.P. Act to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with fine of Rs. 2000/-.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge has ordered that in default of payment of fine accused appellants shall undergo further imprisonment for four months for each amount of fine.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge has further directed that all the sentences of rigorous imprisonment awarded to accused appellants shall run concurrently.

Learned counsel Sri P.K. Singh appeared for accused appellants. Sri Jai Krishna Upadhyay learned A.G.A. appeared for respondent State.

I have heard learned counsel for accused appellants as well as learned A.G.A. and have gone through records of the case.

In brief, relevant facts for determination of this appeal are that Crime No. 136 of 1998 under sections 498-A, 304-B IPC has been registered in P.S. Chhawani, District Basti on the basis of report Ext. Ka-1 presented by complainant Ram Sundar in P.S. Chhawani, District Basti on 19.7.1998 at about 11.45 a.m.. According to FIR Ext. Ka-1 prosecution case is that the marriage of Smt. Meghi niece of complainant Ram Sundar was solemnized with Ram Prasad son of accused Bundele five years earlier to occurrence. Since one year before occurrence accused Bundele and his family members were making pressure on Meghi niece of complainant to bring Rs. 20,000/- from her Maika (father''s house) and were subjecting her to cruelty in pursuance of said demand. Smt. Meghi niece of complainant informed complainant, whereupon complainant went to accused house and tried to convince accused Bundele but accused did not stop harassment and cruelty to niece of complainant. Ultimately on 16.7.1998 accused appellants Bundele, Smt. Kailasha Devi and Smt. Kala Devi, who are father-in-law, mother-in-law and cousin mother-in-law of Smt. Meghi the niece of complainant alongwith co-accused Sante son of Bundele killed Smt. Meghi. After receiving information, complainant Ram Sundar went to the husband''s house of his niece Smt. Meghi and inquired from said accused about the incident but they did not give satisfactory reply. Thereafter on 19.7.1998 dead body of Smt. Meghi niece of complainant was recovered from water near Bandh.

According to FIR Ext. Ka-1 a son was born to Smt. Meghi about 12 days before occurrence. Her son was alive in village Bansgaon, the village of accused.

On the basis of First Information Report Ext. Ka-1 Chik FIR Ext. Ka-4 was written in P.S. Chhawani, District Basti and aforesaid crime was registered. Thereafter, police started investigation. Inquest report of dead body of Smt. Meghi was prepared and dead body was sent for post mortem in sealed cover after having completed necessary formalities. In post mortem report cause of death of Smt. Meghi was found asphyxia due to strangulation.

After having completed investigation in accordance with law police submitted charge sheet against accused appellants Bundele, Smt. Kailasha Devi and Smt. Kala Devi as well as co-accused Sante alias Santosh Kumar, whereupon learned Magistrate took cognizance and after compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the court of Session for trial of accused. Thereafter, Session Trial No. 232 of 1998 (State of U.P. v. Bundele and others) was registered in the Session court of Basti and Sessions Judge, Basti framed charges against all the accused for offences punishable under section 3/4 D.P. Act as well as section 498-A and 304-B IPC..

All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Later on co-accused Sante alias Santosh Kumar was held juvenile by the trial court, therefore, his case was referred to Juvenile Justice Board and trial of remaining accused appellants Bundele, Smt. Kailasha and Smt. Kala Devi was conducted.

Prosecution examined P.W.-1 complainant Ram Sundar, P.W.-2 Ram Bhawan, P.W.-3 C.O. Lallan Singh, P.W.-4 Dr. P.K. Singh, P.W.-5 Head Maharrir Ramayan Singh, P.W-6 Ram Shankar father of deceased Meghi, P.W.-7 Badlu, P.W.-8 Sita Ram and P.W.-9 Ramnayan.

Ram Ujagir and Atma Ram Yadav were examined by court as C.W.-1 and C.W.- 2 respectively.

After evidence of prosecution statements of accused appellants were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.. All of them stated that they have been falsely implicated.

Accused appellants Bundele and Smt. Kailasha Devi stated in their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. that at the time of death, deceased Smt. Meghi was in her maternal grand father''s house.

No evidence was adduced on behalf of accused in defence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. No. 3, Basti heard arguments of parties and passed impugned judgement and order dated 27.11.2008 whereby he has convicted and sentenced accused appellants as mentioned above.

Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that he is not challenging convictions of accused appellants recorded by trial court. He is contesting appeal on the point of sentence only.

Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that the sentences awarded by trial court are excessive. A lenient view should be adopted for awarding sentences to accused appellants.

Learned A.G.A. contended that sentences awarded by trial court are appropriate and no interference is required by this Court.

I have considered contentions of parties.

Perusal of impugned judgement and order passed by learned trial court shows that trial court has gone through whole evidence on record and has considered all relevant facts and circumstances of the case. Learned trial court has rightly placed reliance on evidence adduced by prosecution to convict accused appellants for offences under section 498-A, 304-B and 201 IPC as well as section 4 of D.P. Act.

Learned counsel for accused appellants has not challenged convictions recorded by trial court.

In view of above convictions recorded by trial court against accused appellants for offences under section 498-A, 304-B and 201 IPC as well as section 4 of D.P. Act are upheld.

Minimum punishment prescribed for offence under section 304-B IPC is seven years, which may be extended upto imprisonment for life.

Learned trial court has awarded of rigorous imprisonment for ten years to all accused appellants for offence under section 304-B of IPC. Sentence awarded by trial court is above minimum sentence prescribed for the offence.

Accused appellant Smt. Kailasha Devi and Smt. Kala Devi are ladies. Considering all facts and circumstances of the case, it appears just that sentences awarded to these lady accused appellants for offence under section 304-B IPC should be reduced to minimum sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years prescribed by section 304-B IPC.. But considering all facts and circumstances of the case and position of accused appellant Bundele in family, I am of the view that sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years awarded by trial court to accused appellant Bundele under section 304-B IPC is appropriate.

In view of above, I am of the view that appeal filed on behalf of accused appellants Smt. Kailasha Devi and Smt. Kala Devi should be allowed on the point of sentence and sentence awarded to them by trial court for offence punishable under section 304-B IPC should be reduced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. But no interference appears proper in sentence awarded by trial court to accused appellant Bundele.

Section 428 Cr.P.C. provides that period of detention in the same offence shall be set off against the term of imprisonment awarded by court on conviction, therefore, accused appellants are entitled to set off period already undergone in this crime against term of imprisonment awarded.

In view of conclusion drawn above, appeal filed on behalf of accused appellants Smt. Kailasha Devi and Smt. Kala Devi is allowed partly on point of sentence. Impugned judgement and order passed by learned trial court is modified to the extent that sentence awarded to these appellants by trial court under section 304-B IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

Period of detention already undergone by accused appellants Bundele, Smt. Kailasha Devi and Smt. Kala Devi in this crime shall be set off against sentence awarded to them. Remaining part of judgement and order passed by learned trial court is upheld.

Appeal filed on behalf of accused appellant Bundele is disposed of accordingly.

Send copy of this judgement to trial court for sending revised conviction warrant.

Send back records of trial court immediately.