IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CMMINAL APPEAL N0. c^3 /2009 APPELLANT (IN JAIL) ^y^::'' ^^^ ^•-"^s^. ^•\.. .^^-s^^ ^ ^> ^' RESPONDENTS Jan Mohammed s/o Sher Mohammed, aged about 24 years, Occupation Mechanic, R/o Purana Bazarpara, Surajpur, P. S. Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Surajpur, District^tfrguja (C.G.). CMMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 12} OF THE CODE OF CMMINAL PROCEDURE_CQDE_ pTfir^'^" HIGH GOURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILA^PUR SB : HON*BLE MR. JUSTICB PRITINKBR DIWAKER CR.A.NO. 353^2009 APPBLLANT RBSPONDENT vex-sus Jaii Mohajmmed State of CNia.ttisgarh Smt, Kiraii Jain, counsel for the appellant Shri Praveea Das, Dy. G.A. for thc State. • . APPBAL V/S 374(2) OF THB CmMINAL PROCEDURB <X?DB JUDGMENT - * (20.04.2p.ll| The present appeal arises .otit. of fhe judgioaeat & oirler d.ated .30.03.2009 passed.by tMe.;First Additio'mri'.Sess.ions Jxidge, Sxirajpur District Sui^tija. in. S.T.' No. 46/-Q8. .coB1ra:1;tlo.g fhe acciiaed/^pellaiit for fhe offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC'' •^m.d 'B.eB.teB.cio.g him to undergo rigorous imprisonnient for ten years' axid firs.e of Rs. 1000, m. default offiae to. furth.er iindergo RI for six morfctl&s. 2, Prosecution case m brief is that niarriage of Klsusfouiirdsba (smce deceased) was solemrsjzed with tlie accused/appellant ia May 2007 aad she died 011 30.09.07 in her matdmomal hoiise by haagmg herself. It is aUeged tiiat imm.ediately aft.er the marria.ge, deceased was subjected to cnxelty by fhe accusedyappellaat for demaiid of Rs« 20,000 & motor cycle. Merg mtsmation (Ex.P/6) was lodged on fhe same day by Sher Mohammed-father. of the accused/appelian.t axi.d after •m.erg enquiry, PIR (Ex.P/7) was registej'ed oa 8.10»07 uiider Sectioa. 304-B of fhe IPC. After iD.vestj^atioii, challaii was- filed oa 15.12.07 under Section 304-B IPC. 3, In order to establish the guilt offhe accused, tlie prosecution has exaoiiaed ten witaesses. Statement offhe accused/appellantwas also recopded under Section 313' of fbe Cr.P.C, m. which he dented. .^" 'f^ the charges leveUed against him aad pleaded his mnocence and fal^ iiaptication isi fhe case. 4. After heaniig counsel for the parties, fhe trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appeUaiit for the oflfeiice as iiientioned above. Hence fhis appeal. 5. Heand coirasel for fhe parties aad peniaed tfae xaaterial available on. rccord mcludmg fhe impugned judgmeiit. 6. Contention ofSmt. Jaia, coun.sel for the a.ppeBant is that she is not pressing fbiis appeal on merits aB.d woiild confcie her argiim.ent on senteace part thereof only, She submits tliat ihc appeUao,t is a young s£LQn of24 yearSp is the sole eaoring meinber ofthe faxmly^ has a poor fiaancial backgroundy his old fafher and niotlier does not keep good heaSfh, his sentence of RI for ten years be rediiced to that of7 years. In support of her contention, she has placed her stroog reliance m the matters of Scmt Ke^ ¥s»Steete ^Hargiema rcpo^rtfid in (1998) S SCC 605, Ashok Kusmar Ws. Stete ofSeeryemn reported in (2007) 9 SCC 433 Ss BeiXdev SSingh Vs. Stxste efPuf^e^ reported in (2009} 3 SCC (Cri.) S37. 7. On fhe ofher haad; State coimsel submite that no leisiency be shown. to the accused/appellarit. 8. KhainAunisha (P.W.-l) niother of the deceased, Akimuddia (P.W,-2) neighbour of the parents ofthe deceased, Kasiaxuddisi (P.W.- 4) fafher of the deceased and Salma (P.W.-5) sister-m-law of the deceased are fhe inam prosecution w^itnesses who faave niade allegations of cnielty aiid desnand of dowsy agamst tfae accused/appellaat. 9. Considering the lacts and circiixnstaaces of the case and the submission as made by coiinsel for fhe appellaiit, his convictlon under Section 304-B IPC m maintained. So far as ttie sentence part is concemed, it has been argued by counsel for fhe appellaiit that tfae a'ppellan.t. is a youiig nian of 24 years, i.s the sole eamm.^ inember of '^'v ^^ •i ¥;.;.;.4'iiS^ II •-!...<,?....^^ g J.S '-^,^'^ tfae faimly, has a poor fmancial backgrouBd, his old fafher and raother does not keep good health, appellant is io jail sioce 3 years & 6 months and further considermg tlie law laid dowu. by fhe Apex Court io fhe above cited judginentB, his aeiitence is reduced to seveii years from fhat of ten years. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge