'/^ ^' HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR (Sinale Bench: Hon'bleShri Sunil Kumar Sinha. J) Criminal ApDeal'No. 1070 of 1991 Bhushan Vs. StateofM.P. (Now Stateof Chhattisgarh) JUDGMENT Post for Judgment : /4^09/2010 Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge j.7 if HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH.BILASPUR (Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha. J) '^ APPELLANT RESPONDENT Criminal ADpeal No. 1070 of 1991 Bhushan S/o Punawa Kurre, aged about 16years, caste Satnami R/o Sector-2, Central Avenue, Block-9, Quarter 10, P.S. Bhilainagar, Distt. Durg (M.P.)(NowChhattisgarh) Versus State of M.P. (Now State of Chhattisgarh) Through P.S. Bhilainagar, Sector-6, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (M.P.) (Now Chhattisgarh) (Appeal underSection 374 (2)ofThe Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973) Appearance: Mr. SanjayAgrawal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyerforthe State. JUDGMENT (/^-.09.2010) Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) Appellant- Bhushan stands convicted u/s 498-A IPCand sentenced to undergo R.l. for 3 years, by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessipns Trial No. 89/90 yide judgmentdated 26 of November, 1991. . . (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- Appellant- Bhushan and his fattier both were prosecuted u/ss 307 & 498-A IPC on the charges that they treated the complainant, Ahiliya Bai (PW-1- wife of appellant- Bhushan) with cruelty and they alsoattempted her life on 16.5.87 by pouring kerosene oil on her ^sS^S^S^^ -A^fe .-.5fe. • '^. •''w'.&^"''''''^. Criminal Apoeal No. 1070 of 1991 body. Ahiliya Bai was married to Bhushan on 1s of May, 1987. She was residing with the accused persons in her in-laws place. After sometime, the accused persons started treating her with cruelty on account of dowry. The allegations are that on 16.5.87 at about 7- 8.00 p.m., they poured kerosene oil on her body. She felt that the she would be burnl: she ran away from their house and went to the house of her maternal uncle and narrated the story tohim. The learned Sessions'Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence led before it, acquitted co-accused Punawa (father-in-law) from all the charges framed against him. Appellant- Bhushan was also acquitted of charges framed u/s 307 IPC. However, he was convicted u/s 489-A IPCand sentenced to undergo R.l. for 3years. (3) Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has not argued on the findingofconviction u/s 498-A IPC recorded against the appellant. He only argued that the sentenee imposed against the appellantu/s498-A IPC is too harsh, which may be suitably reduced, preferably to the period already undergone which comes about 19 months in this matter. ^. _- . . ^ (4) On the, other hand, Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. (5) I have heard the learned cpunsel for the parties at length and have also perused'the records of the sessions case. -'n? '*' (6) So far as fincj^of conviction u/s 498-AIPC is concerned, we find that there is ample evidence on record for holding theappellant guilty of the offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC. Itcomes in the evidence ofAhiliya Bai ^PW-1) that after the.marriage, she was being treated with cruelty by the •^ri;t. ik <!> Crimmal Apueal No. 1070 of 1991 appellant and sometimes she was even beaten by him. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly hetd that the appellant was guilty of the offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC. (7) So far as adequacy of sentence is concerned, though Section 498- A IPC provides that the sentence may extend to Syears, however an uniform sentence cannot be awarded to each culprit and the term of sentence would depend on the facts and circumstancesof each case. In this regard it is important to keep in mind the "docthne of just deserl" which is foundation of a criminal sentence which is to be awarded for a punishment. What one really deserves for punishment for having committed a crime is the underlying principle. The punish.ment must not be disproportionately great is a corollary of "just deserf which is governed by the same principle which says that there cannot be a punishment without guilt and the basic element bebind the prindple is the proportion between crime and punishment. However, the determination of the quantum of punishment would always depend upon the ancillary factors which further would be subject to the statutory obligations specificatly provided by law in force. (8) In the presentcase, the marriage tookplaceonl ofMay, 1987. It comes in the evidence that the maternal uncle of the complainant had performed \fer marriage and father of the cpmplainant had not attended the marriage. The complainwit resided in her in-laws place for about1O- 15 days and the alleged incident of pouring kerosene oil took place on 16.5.87. The appellant and his father have been acquitted of the charges framed for attempting the life of the complainant and theallegations in "N. -/.. .t:"' 1-- 1. a, CnminalABpealNo. 1070 of 1991 vatti relation to treatingherwith cruelty made against father of the appellant has been disbelieved and the allegations against the appeiiant are general. The incident took place on 16.5.87 and the conviction was recorded on 26.11.91. On perusal of the records, it appears that the appellant has already undecgone fpr about 19 months in this matter. Presently the appellant is on bail since 26.6.93. Therefore, looking to the above facts and circumstancesof the case, in the opinion of this Court, it would not be appropriate to re-send the appellant to jail and the period already undergone appears to be adequate punishment in the matter. (9) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. While confirming the conviction of the appellant u/s 498-A IPC, the sentence of R.l. for 3 years awarded by the Sessions Court is set-aside. Instead thereof, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone which comes about 19 months. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and surety stands discharged. r Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge •--r