^'"y.^:^s^^^^i^ffi..l^^^^^^li^^A^N^^^l^y?^^1^^^^^ ^••"..•"Sl .cpo°%%^ SIM89/(JaU) P.J.P.R.11/94/2,000 No APPEAL OF' PRISONER :M.AH.k......... Name..^^^..^.y .^..............:-......... Father's name ..^^^^..^^.^...^.^^;.^^^...^.^.^q^ ResideBce..^^...^^.^^.^^.Age..:...^;^-..<q,.<^.,.....-......- '.....» Sentericedto^.^.^^^^.^.....OD.....-^^^g,^ Underseetion^^^;^^^y^^,...by-g^.i^.^^^^^^^<.^ It is explained to the prisoner that if he states'or wishes to be represented by legal Ipractitioner the Appellate Court will not pKoceed wrth the base for seven days unless _ the legai practitioner appears. If the legal pra.ctitioner does not appear within seven ^ days he may not heard at all Ififaa prisoner states that he does not wish to be repre- / sented by legal practitioner ttie cou-rt may pruceed at once with the case and will nct be obligedto give a hearing to.any legal praetitioner who should appear . 1 2 3 4 Date of Application for copy ofjudgement ... ..r^^,^-^..,^'.. Uate on which copyreceived ............... ...... «,..^.4.af<i-T-»--i's- Date on which Appeal seat........... ...............^. \.est.'.\ •<^ CT- Whetber the prisoner wishes to be represented or Bet- Y^s / No •3 x No.... ..,2..3^,.^.^^.................. Name .^^^...^y.^Q. ConfiMd^..... ......^.^.^».......Jail ..^ ^.^.^.^^ ^^,.................... No .....?-?.3> ...:...(.4^3.yDated ............... .. W^^ ..•^^J^^...... Forwarded to theeHIEF JUOICIAL MAGTSTRATE^.^.^^^.y^.^.^,^..^^^^^- togather whieh a copy of judgement or order passed in the case for favour oFti'aD's^'' lissioa to the prbper Appellate Court. ^<s\ 3 'i' ~ r^o^^.yp.f^ <^< S' ^> • "aj.o |3 Date ofreceipt in... ........ .....^.............. office / ' • • ' Date of-receipt recprd •to/a6company the .. Memo of.AppeaTto" the Appellate court ..'*,»•-: .r\ No '' Forwarded to tlle Dated- ^^.....:..i.in99i^..:-^..,^.^;|a',V.;'.?^ g ijig!i: LdBri Bl^.aguRy.i itaSA^'1 ', :1| ^ -S:^, •JfKBAbPOff- .•-ffa-;S-. '^ .^-* .y"' Date'^of.rieceipt'iaA^ipellateCaurt Hcg.'i.Me^^^o^u?*^—^*^ ^:~' :';:l^",<'::;Recept'Cteri ff^.-..-Hlsti'Courfc^altiM^ iT AT BI1 "• Dl •imi! 137; Saheb Lal, son of Panchrsm Sahu EN1 State of Mcd.hya Pradesh Shri B.N.Pandey,counsel for the appellant. Shr'1 Neeraj Mehta, PL for the State/resp; CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTTON 374 (2) OF (25.02.20115 This appeal is directed agoinst the judgment iand order dated 3.5.1995 passed by Additiorial Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, [Sis+rict Raipur in Sesslons Trial No. 230/1994 convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years u/S 306, rigorous imprisonment for one year u/S 49B-A IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of ttie ccse are that the marriage of the accused/aypelhnt was -Solemnized with the deceased Uttaro Bai sometime in the year 1993 and she consumed poisonous subs*ance in her matriinonial house on 16.4.1995 as a resuit of whic'n she died on 19A.1994. Merg intimation (Ex.P-2) vuas given by peon of the Hospitiil namety Champeshwgr (PW-1) and during merg enquir-y it / reyealed -•tj'fat the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused/appellant for dem&sd of dowry. After merg enquiry on 21.4.1994 F.I.R. (Ex.P-6) was recorded agninst the accused/appellant under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation challan was filed on 4.5.1994. Whiie framing the .ctia''ges,'tearned tria! Juctge has framed the charge against the 'acsused/aD'D.e.Ilaht under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, "• n ii NB 3. 5o as to hoid the accused/appsliant guii'ty, prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case. Statemenr of the accused/appeliant was also recorded under Sectlon 313 of the Code of Crimina! Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocencs and false iiripiication in the c-ase. 4. After hear'ing the parties the .triai Court has conylcted and sentenced the accussd/appetlant for the orfences as mentioned above. Hence this nppeal. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material o'/aifable on "ecord inciuding the Judgment Jmpugned. 6. Counsel for the appeliant subniits that he is not pressing this appea! as far as it refates to the conviction part of the impugned judgment and woufd have a Jimited prayer with respect to the sentence port thereof only. According to him now the appellant is middie aged person, having family responsibility that the incident took ptace in the ysar 1994 i.e. about 16 years back and that the appellcnt HGS aiready remained in jail for about 25 months, no useful purpose would be seryed in sending him to jaii ond it wouid be in -'•he intersst of justice if the seB'tence imposed on him is reduced to the period aiready undergone by him. To this, counsel for the State has no senous oojection. -7 .Accordingly, the conyiction part of the Judgment impugned is ma'ntained. However, kee'p'mg in view the fact that now the appeiiant ./ 'ia inifldie aged pe/son, has family responsibiiity, incident took piace about 15'years bcrck and he has alrSady remained. in j'aii for about 2' W.onthsand therefore, his sentehce is reduceo to the period aiready undergone by him. .. ;—-- l-s'l\? S'.i^^GiC ,i^s ^w ( i-y i.sutrfirfCr&'^ii.J. Sfl/- Pritinker Oiwaker Jadge *.-.^.