^•r' t;v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Crimiaal Appeal No.460/2001 APPELLANT RJBSPONDENT Bhikhurain Sahu @ Bhikhu, aged about 50 years, s/o Paltaa Sahu, R/o Vitlage-Rawaabhafha, Jainul, P.S.Jamul, District-Durg(CG) Versus State of Chhatdsgarh, through PoMce P.S.Jamul, District-Durg(CG) Appearance: Shri Saurabh Kuniar Paadey, counsel for fhe appeUaat, Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Paael Lawyer for the State. ORAL JUDGMENT (19.07.2007) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard. ChaUenge is made to the judgment ofconviction aad order of senteuce dated 8th May, 2001, passed by the Sessions Judge, Durg in S.T.No.92/1998, whereby, the appeUaiit was convicted under Section 498-A of IPC aad sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years aad to pay a fine ofRs.500/-, ia default ofpayment offine to furfher undergo R.I. for 3 nionths. The appeUaat (fafher-ia-law), his son namLely-Gaaesh (husbaad) aiid his wtfe-Phool Bai (raother-in-law) were charged for aa offence punishable under Sections 306 aad 498-A of IPC. Gaaesh aad Phool Baiwere acquitted ofboth the charges by the trial Court and fhis appeUaiit was also acquitted of fhe charge framed underSection306 ofIPC. / The brief facts are that fhe deceased namely-Sunita was iiiarried to the co-accused - Gaiiesh 4 years prior to tiie date of iacident, which took place on 7.8.1997 when she coinmLitted suicide by haagiag herself while residiag in fhe house Qf her husband aad ia-laws. A inerg uitiaiation to fhis effect was lodged by fhe appeUaat ia Police Sation-Jamul, which was recorded under Ex.P/10, Witaesses were called mider Ex.P/8 Cr.AppealNo.460/2001 ^) ^ aad iaquest on the body of the deceased was prepared aad fhereafter, fhe body was sent for postoiortem under Ex.P/6. The postinorteni report Ex.P/7 was received and after due investigation, an. ojffence under Section 306 ofIPC was registered against fhis appeUaat only fhrough fhe FIR Ex.P/11 aad fhe charge sheetwas filed agaiast this appeUaat alone. On trial, when fhe evidence caiiie agaiast the other co- accused persons, they were also added as accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ajid fhe trialwas concluded. On conclusion of tdal, fhe other 2 co-accused persons were acquitted; however, the appellaat was convicted as aforemLentioned. The conviction aad sentence awarded to fhe appellaat is based upon the testibmony of Chimaii (PW-1 fath.er of fhe deceased)/ Rukiaaiu (PW-2 younger sister of fhe deceased) aad Rahi (PW-3 aaofher sister offhe deceased), Learaed counsel for fhe appeUaiit argues fhat the conviction based upon testiinony of fhese witaesses is not ia accordaace wifh law aad tihie appellant should be acquitted. In tlie altemative, he also argues tliat the appeUaat is aa old maii^ now aged about 60 years, fherefore, tlie quaatuia of sentence awarded to him be reduced, aad since he is io. jail on account of default of appearance aiid he has already undergone for a period of niore thaa 13 raonfhs, it should be preferably reduced to fhe sentence already undergone by hiia. On fhe other haad, learaed counsel for tlie State supports fhe judginent of conviction aad order of sentence passed by the tdal Court. I have heard learaed counsel for the parties at lengfh aad have also perused the record ofthe Sessions tdal. Chmian (PW-1) has deposed fhat after fhe niarriage, the deceased was beiag treated wifh cruelty by fhis appeUaat and his son .on the pretext of deraaad of fan ete. The appellaat zised to pass coianients regardiag marpeet to the deceased. He has deposed vide para 2 fhat when he had gone to ineet the Cr.AppealNo.460/2001 ^ deceased, just 8 days prior to fhe date ofiacident, fhe deceased waated to go wifh him and she has stated fhat fhe fafher-ia-law and husbaiid said to her that fhey wiU kiU her, On fhis, he had a talk wifh fheni, but just after 8 days of the said talk, the girl committed suicide. Rukinani (PW-2) has also deposed vide para 1 that whenever, she niet witb Sunita after fhe inamage, she used to teU her that she was being treated wifh. craelly by her fafher-ia- law, laofher-in-law aad husbaad. They were always laaking taunts against her, saying fh.at she had coine froin a poor family. Almost similar evidence has been given by Rahi (PW-3), who has deposed tiiat Sunita was beiag treated with cruelty by her father-iQ.-law aiid husbaad on fhe pretext of deinaad of dowry. Though these witoaesses have been put to a lengfhy cross- exaiaiaation by the defence, but nofhiag very important^so far as fhe present appeUant-Bhikhurain is conceraed, has conie ia their evidence aiid fheir evidence appear to be ti-ustworthy aad reUable. The judgiaent of Sessions Court would show that on fhe basis of various oinissions ia fhe evidence of fhese witaesses pertainiag to co-accused - Gaaesh aad Phool Bai, fhe said Court has not beUeved on fheir testiniony agamst fhose accused persons and giviag benefit of fhe oinissions inade by thein^ regardiag fhe aUegations oftoreating fhe deceased witti cruelty on account of deniaad of dowry, fhey were acquitted by the tarial Court, but so far as this appeUant is concemed, fhe torial Court has rightly reUed upon their testtmony aad has righUy recorded fhe fiadiag of conviction against hiin. There is no force ia the argunients advanced by learaed counsel for fhe appeUaat fhat fhe findiag recorded by fhe trial Court regarduig coiniaission of oflTence under Section 498-A IPC agamst this appeUaat is not ia accordaace with law aad fhe same caanotbe accepted. l—_- 4 Cr.AppealNo.460/2001 Now the next question comes regardmg the sentence. Adinittedly, fhe appeUaiit is aged about 60 years, as on today. Previously he was on bail, but siace he committed a default of appearaiice, he was taken iato custody on 6.7.2006 aad from the said date, he is ia jail and as stated by learaed counsel for fhe appeUaat, he has already undergone for a period raore fhaa 13 luonths. Learaed counsel for fhe appeUaat subiuits fhaf in fhe facts and circurastaaces ofthe case, particularly lookiag to fhe age of the appellant, the sentence already undergone by hioi would be fhe proper sentence for him aiid he be awarded the sanie. The prmciple of proportion between crime aad punisTiment is goveraed by fhe c6Doctrine of just deserf, The doctrme is fhe foundation of a crhniaal sentence which is ultimately awarded for a punishment to fhe wrong doer. What one really deserves should be fhe punishraent for haviiig coinraitted a crmie is ffae underlyiag principle. The punishraent luust not be disproportionately great is a coroUaiy of <<just deserC which is goveraed by fhe saine principle which says that there cannot be a punishment wifhout giult aad the basic eleinent behiad the principle is fhe propordon between crmie aad piinishinent. The lesser is the gravity of the crmie, the sinaller would be the punishnient aad fhe greater is tfae gravity of fhe criine, the higher would be fhe punishiaent, subject to fhe aacillaiy factors for determiaiag fhe proportion of fhe saine, though all further subject to the statutory obUgations spect&cally provided by law ia force, In fhe present case, looking to the facts aad circurastaaces, where fhe husbaad aad fhe m.dther-in-law have ali'eady been acquitted on the same set of evidence aad fhe fafhLer-in-law, who is aged about 60 years, was convicted for aa offence punishable under Section 498-A ofIPC, I deeni it proper Cr.AppealNo.460/2001 1. that the jail sentence of 1 Y2 years along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- would be sufficient to ineet the ends ofjustice. Accordingly, fhe appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appeUaat awarded under Section 498-A is hereby confinned. However, the sentence awarded to him is set aside. Instead of the sentence awarded by the Sesslons Court, he is sentenced to undergo RJ. for 1 % years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default ofpayment offine he shaU further undergo RJ. for 6 monfhs. Ordered accordmgly. | Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge sunita