1 cr-apeal-468-09 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 468 OF 2009 IN SESSIONS CASE NO. 16 OF 2003 WITH CRI.APPLICATION NO. 1158 OF 2009 Machindra @ Mansaram Supdu Surse ] Age 23 years, Resident of Sakora, ] Tal. Nandgaon, Dist. Nasik, Maharashtra ] ]..Appellant [Ori.Accused] Vs. The State of Maharashtra ] (at the instance of Nandgaon ] Police Station) ]..Respondent .... Appellant in person Smt. M.M.Deshmukh APP for State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 The appellant-original accused has challenged the judgment and order dated 9th April, 2009 in Sessions Case No. 16 of 2003 passed 2 cr-apeal-468-09 by the learned Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge-1 Malegaon, Dist. Nasik. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC. For the offence under Section 498A of IPC, the appellant was sentenced to RI for one and half year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- i/d RI for four months. For the offence under Section 306 of IPC, the appellant was sentenced to RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- i/d further RI for 15 months. The learned Judge directed both the substantive sentences to run concurrently. 2 The appellant had also preferred Cri. Application No. 1158 of 2009 wherein he had prayed for bail. In the said bail application, the applicant ’s counsel who is the same counsel engaged by him in the appeal repeatedly remained absent, hence, notice was issued to the appellant who was in Nasik Jail to inform him whether he wants to engage an advocate. On receipt of notice, the appellant gave his written endorsement on the copy of the notice mentioning that he does not want to engage any lawyer. However, this Court felt it was desirable to call the appellant and accordingly issued directions by order dated 30.8.2010. On 13.9.2010 pursuant to the order dated 30.8.2010 passed by this Court in Application No. 1158 of 2009 the appellant was 3 cr-apeal-468-09 produced before this Court from Nasik Road Central Prison. On that day, the appellant stated that he does not want to engage any advocate. He further stated that he is not even pressing his application for bail as he is not in a position to furnish any surety or even cash bail as his financial condition is very poor. He was asked whether an advocate from the legal aid panel should be appointed to represent his case, whereupon he stated that it is not necessary as he does not wish to make any submission on merits and his only prayer is that the sentence of imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone or at the most sentence of imprisonment under Section 306 of IPC be reduced to three years. In addition to that, the appellant has also stated that he has a young minor daughter who is at present being looked after by his aged mother. There is no earning member in the family, hence, he stated that if he is released from prison, he can take care of his mother and minor daughter. 3 The learned APP on instructions states that at present the appellant has undergone 2 years and 17 days of imprisonment. She has further stated that the conduct of the appellant in jail is good. She has tendered the report received from jail authority which is taken on record and marked `X' for identification. 4 cr-apeal-468-09 4 The prosecution case is that on account of ill-treatment and harassment by the appellant and his family members, his wife Sunanda committed suicide by consuming poison, however, on going through the evidence of PW 1 Manjulabai who is mother of Sunanda, it is noticed that her evidence that her daughter was fed up with ill-treatment by the accused persons, hence, she consumed poison, is an omission. She has not stated so before the police. This is an omission on a vital aspect. 5 Thus, looking to the evidence of Manjulabai and the prayer made by the appellant, I am inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. Hence, the following order is passed. ORDER 1) The conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A of IPC is maintained. The sentence of imprisonment and fine amount under Section 498-A is maintained, however, the indefault sentence under Section 498-A of IPC is reduced from four months RI to one month RI. 5 cr-apeal-468-09 2) The conviction of the appellant under Section 306 of IPC is maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment under Section 306 of IPC is reduced from five years RI to three years RI. The sentence of fine is also maintained, however, the in default sentence imposed on appellant under Section 306 of IPC is reduced from 15 months RI to one month RI. 3) Appellant be released on serving out the remaining sentence if not required in any other case. 4) Appeal is partly allowed. 5) Cri. Application No.1158 of 2009 is disposed of as not pressed. 6) Order be communicated to the appellant who is in jail. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]