Mahendra Kumar Sondhiya vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

G.S. Solanki, J.—The First Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur passed the impugned judgment dated 25.01.2005 in S.T. No. 640/02 by which the Appellant/accused has been convicted u/s 498A of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, further Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months.

Being aggrieved the Appellant/accused has preferred this appeal u/s 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure

The prosecution case in short is that marriage of deceased Sarita and Appellant was solemnized just before 3 years of the incident. It is also alleged that deceased Sarita was ill treated by Appellant and other co-accused(acquitted). Deceased Sarita narrated the fact of demand of dowry to her father Motiram(P.W.1), mother Kaushalya bai(P.W.4) and niece Julie(P.W.9).

It is also alleged that Appellant directly made demand of refrigerator, bed, scooter and colour TV from Motiram(P.W.1). It is also alleged that due to the cruelty Sarita attempted suicide on 12.4.2002. She was admitted in hospital and treated by Dr. Vinod Kumar Tamrakar(P.W.5) but she succumbed to burn injuries on 2.5.2002.

A marg was registered in the Police Station Garha. Dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Dr. Arun Sen performed the autopsy on the body of deceased Sarita who opined that death was due to the burn infection.

Learned trial Court framed the charges against the Appellant/accused under Sections 498A, 304B of I.P.C.

The Appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence.

After appraisal of evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the co-accused however Appellant was convicted under 498-A of IPC and sentenced as mentioned herein above. Hence, this appeal.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that looking to the evidence on record, he is not challenging the conviction recorded by the trial Court. He further submitted that a dying declaration(Ex.D-4) was recorded by Dr. Aalok Somani immediately after the admission of deceased Sarita in hospital which reveals that deceased Sarita burnt accidentally and her husband(Appellant) tried to save her. In these circumstances, end of justice would be met out if Appellant be convicted for the jail sentence already undergone and fine be enhanced.

Learned Counsel for the State also has no objection to the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant.

It is true that this Appellant tried to save his wife at the time of burning. This can be considered as mitigating circumstances. On considering this fact, I am also of the view that if Appellant be convicted for jail sentence already undergone( 16.6.2002 to 1.11.2002, approximately 4 and half months) and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine further Simple Imprisonment for 3 months, end of justice would be met out

In these circumstances, appeal is partly allowed. Conviction recorded by trial Court against the Appellant u/s 498A of I.P.C. is hereby affirmed and the sentence is altered in the following way:

Appellant is sentenced, for jail sentence(from 16.6.2002 to 1.11.2002, approximately 4 and half months) of already undergone and fine of Rs. 10,000/- . In default of fine further Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.

Record of the trial Court be sent back along with the copy of judgment for compliance and necessary action.

The Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. If any fine amount is deposited, set off be given.