1 Cr.A.No.232/2005 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : TARUN KUMAR KAUSHAL, J. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 232/2005 Ramnaresh aged about 35 years, S/o Ramlal Badhai, R/o Village Itwan-Tilha, P.S. Devendra Nagar, District Panna (MP) ... Appellant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Police Station Devendranagar District Panna (MP) ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Anand Nayak, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Vinod Fouzdar, Panel Lawyer JUDGMENT 13.12.2011 This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 11.01.2005 passed by Sessions Judge Panna in S.T. No. 135/2003 convicting the appellant under Section 498 A of IPC and sentenced to 2 years R.I. and Rs. 1000/- fine. 2. Facts of the case, in short, are that on 24.08.2003 in the intervening night wife of the appellant Meera Bai committed suicide by hanging herself in her matrimonial house. Deceased ended her life out of harassment and frustration caused by the appellant and his family members to her. Deceased had married with the appellant about 16-17 years ago. Police Devendranagar Panna registered marg proceeding and sent dead body of deceased at post mortem. After recording the statement of parents and family members of the deceased, a case under section 498A, 306 and 341 of IPC was registered at Police 2 Cr.A.No.232/2005 Station Devendranagar at Crime No. 126/2003 against the appellant and 4 family members on 24.08.2003. Appellant husband has committed harassment towards deceased by way of neglecting her and not providing her proper protection. Appellant used to go in Goa and Andhra Pradesh leaving her alone and has also demanded money from her family members. 3. Completing the investigation, police Devendranagar submitted a charge-sheet under section 498A, 306 of IPC against the appellant and 4 other family members. Trial Court framed charges under section 498A, 306 of IPC and 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Appellants abjured guilt. To substantiate the case of prosecution statements of Mehagulal @ Mahendra father of the deceased (PW-1), Buiya mother of the deceased (PW-2), Balkrishn brother of the deceased (PW-3), Ghanshyam Das (PW-4), Dr. P.C. Shrivastava (PW-5), Shiv Prasad (PW-6), Ramgopal (PW-7) and Shri R.P. Rai ASI (PW-8) were recorded. 4. Defence of the appellant in Trial Court was that of false implication. 5. Appreciating aforesaid evidence, Trial Court acquitted the remaining accused persons of all the charges and further acquitted the appellant of the charges under section 306 IPC and under section 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, however convicted him under section 498A of IPC and sentenced as above. 6. This appeal has been preferred on the grounds that appreciation of evidence is not proper. Prosecution failed to prove any overt act on the part of the appellant which can be said the act of cruelty and harassment towards the deceased. On the other hand learned Panel Lawyer supported the findings of conviction and sentence both. 7. Father of deceased (PW-1), mother of deceased (PW-2) and brother of deceased (PW-3) categorically stated that appellant used to neglect the deceased because he had his inclination towards his sister- 3 Cr.A.No.232/2005 in-law and used to neglect saying her that she does not deserve to live with him. Above such act and conduct of the appellant has led the deceased to commit the suicide ultimately. I see no perversity in appreciation of evidence has done by the Trial Court and I hereby affirm the sentence of the appellant under section 498A of IPC. 8. It is submitted by Shri Anand Nayak learned counsel for the appellant that pending trial appellant has suffered custody of about 4 months (110 days). He succeeded to live with husband 18 years after the marriage. Incident has occurred on account of sudden impulses of the deceased. No useful propose would be served to send the appellant in jail again. 9. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case for the offence under section 498A of IPC period of jail custody 3 and ½ months seems to be just and proper and sufficient. Fine amount is required to be enhanced. 10. Appeal is allowed in part on the point of sentence. For offence under Section 498A jail sentence of 2 years is reduced to the period of already undergone of 110 days, however, fine amount is enhanced from 1,000/- to 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine appellant shall undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. 11. Appeal is allowed in part. 12. Appellant is directed to remain present on or before 31.01.2012 before Trial Court for depositing the balance amount or to undergo default jail sentence, as the case may be. Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above. (TARUN KUMAR KAUSHAL) JUDGE ak