HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No. 502/2006 Chokhelal Versus State of Madhya Pradesh __________________________________________________ For the appellant : Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Advocate. For the State : Shri Sameer Chille, GA. __________________________________________________ Present: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Sinho __________________________________________________ J U D G M E N T (13/12/2011) Appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and conviction passed by XIth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No. 556/05 vide impugned judgment dated 9/03/06 whereby being convicted u/s 498-A of IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer further RI for 6 months. Further being convicted u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer further RI for 3 months. 2. As per the prosecution case deceased Urmila was married with appellant approximately 10 years before the incident. On 21/09/2005 Urmila set herself in fire and succumbed to death. Just after the incident merg report was lodged and inquest panchnama Ex.P-3 was prepared in presence of PW-4 Todar Singh by PW-7 Ajmer Handa Head Constable police station Chargawa during investigation. Dead body was sent for postmortem, as per postmortem report Ex.P- 6 submitted by PW-6 Dr. Abhishek Singh opined that deceased Urmila died due to burn injuries. Completing the investigation, appellant was charge sheeted. 3. Learned counsel for appellant Shri Upadhyay has submitted that he is only challenging the quantum of sentence. 4. The court below has not committed any mistake while believing the statements of PW-1 Ratiram, PW-2 Manto Bai, PW-3 Sharda Prasad, PW-4 Todar Singh and PW-7 Ajmer Handa. Nothing could be brought on record so as to suggest that appellant is falsely implicated in any extraneous consideration. The court below has rightly convicted the appellant under the aforesaid sections. 5. With regard to sentence is concerned, admittedly appellant Chokhelal was in jail from 4/10/05 to 6/01/06 (total 93 days). No previous criminal conduct of the appellant has been proved by prosecution. No fruitful purpose will be served by sending applicant for short term of sentence in jail therefore, the jail sentence awarded by the courts below can be reduced to the period already undergone by appellant in jail. 6. Resultantly, appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of appellant u/s 498-A of IPC and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is affirmed. Appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone however, the fine amount u/s 498-A and u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 2000/- each (total Rs. 4000/-) in default to suffer further jail sentence for 3 months each respectively, fine will be deposited within four months from today. 7. With this modification, the appeal is allowed in part. Copy of this order be sent to the trial court for information and compliance. (S.C. Sinho) Judge