•«». * £46"E^aanaaooSd "'KHiNi'aa ao acoo SHI, ao (E-) fz-e SOIASSS asafia I'ssda.v TOHIHIHD ysspeja eAqpBiir 50 a^e^g^ sq.uspuoassg -.-p-w- g-q°^ ~n sn s -i SA •.tndSE'[T:a-"l-^STa'-teape.ieg UGT:^e?.g sstXOa 'SAJBB SBBTT-CA 3:0 s^aeptsaH q?-0g °e-iB3^ OE •»noqB psfie '-pnea^es so^eqg mB-a o/s^jeg tieqa(Z •s-TBs.X 32 l.noqe psSe „_.-.-—..•"•1""' a HSS? (TTep "I) -paeuq.eg - so-ieqg uiB-g o/s xesaeH" (-[ :sq.ue"[T3clct¥ .^ ' ' ;.-'-'/ ' " ' -' ^ S66T ?0 o,=><^^ 'OKI T:?gad¥ T?HIMI83 . •aB.d'NB.W 3,^ HSSQ^ad ¥AHCKH ^O 0,8003 HSIH 3HA tll c)oesSOOOOOdO .^TW w .^^ ^ ^" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 1366 of 1995 APPELLANTS RESPONDENT VERSUS Mansai and another State of Madhya Pradesh. Shri R.K. Bhagat, counsel for appellants. Shri Vaibhav Goverdha.n PL for respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (21 OF THE CODEQF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (26.03.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.10.1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Shakti, in Sessions Trial No. 130/1994 convicting the accused/appellants for the offence punishable under Section,498-A IPC and sentencing each ofthem to undergo rigorous imprisanment for three years and pay fine of Rs. 500, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that marriage of deceased Chitralekha was solemnized with the accused/appellant No.1 Mansai sometime in the year 1988 and from the beginning she was subjected to cruelty byjhe appellants who are her husband and brother-in-law respectively, and other family members. It is alleged that she was sent back to her parents' house to bring dowry and after intervention of the Panchayat, she was brought back. On 1.5.1993 the deceased was beaten brutally by the accused/appellants and other family members. Thereafter, the deceased-.wds again sent to her parents' house where on 5.9.1993 herdaughteraged about 6>^ionths expired and subsequently on 10.9.1993 shealso expired while being taken to the hospital at Korba. After investigation, the challan was filed against the appellants and four other accused persons for the offence under Section304-B IPC. 3>. ' So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, prosecution has examined l&.^witnesses.in support of its case. Statements of the I'i -.'«h,.l accused/appellants were also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. This apart, one Kartik Ram (DW-1) has also been examined by the defence in support of its case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acquitted the accused/appellants of the' offence under Section 304-B IPC but convicted and sentenced them for the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC. Other accused persons have however been acquitted by the Court belowbfthe charge levelled against them. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including thejudgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellants submits that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the appellant No.1 is aged more than 40 years whereas appellant No.2 is aged about 45 years, that the incident had taken place in the year 1993, that the accused/appellants have already remained in jail for more than two years, no useful purpose would be served in sending them to jail and it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. To this, counsel for the State has no seriousobjection. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained. Jail sentence imposed on the accused/appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the sentence of fine imposed by the Gourt belowis enhanced to Rs. 1,500 each from that of Rs. 500./0ut ofthis total fine amount of Rs. 3000, Rs. 2,500 shall be payable to be the compteinant. If the fine amount as directed is not deposited in the tria) Court within four months from today, the sentence imposed on them by the trial Court shall stand restored. 8. Appeal thus partly succeeds. Sri' Pritinker Diwaker Judge SL ^