IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR 1. D.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 758/2003 ( HARI SINGH VS STATE ) 2. D.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 743/2003 ( BHERU SINGH VS STATE) J U D G M E N T APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374(2) Cr.P.C. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.07.2003 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACK) CAMP BHINMAL IN SESSIONS CASE NO. 47/2003 DATE OF JUDGMENT : 03rd August, 2007 HON'BLE MR. BHAGWATI PRASAD, J. HON'BLE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J. Mr. Dhirendra Singh for the appellants. Mr. JPS Choudhary, P.P. Mr. Rakesh Arora for the complainant * * * * * BY THE COURT : Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The present appeals have been filed by the three accused persons who have been convicted by the Court below as under :- NAME OFFENCES PUNISHMENT Hari Singh Section 304-B IPC Life imprisonment Section 498A IPC Two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- Bheru Singh Section 498A IPC Two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- Smt. Sunder Section 498A IPC Two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- The accused appellants are aggrieved by the decision of the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Camp Bhinmal dated 04.07.2003. PW/1 Narpat Singh submitted a written report at Police Station Bhinmal on 22.04.2001 that Smt. Prakash was married to accused Hari Singh. After marriage, Hari Singh started persecuting her. On this, Prakash came to her maternal home. Two months back, Hari Singh came to take his wife back and he assured that he would not tease her and apologised for his conducts. Therefore, Prakash went with him. Subsequently, Prakash died under suspicious circumstances. During postmortem, it was found that Prakash died to asphyxia due to throttling. Prior to her death, Prakash was admitted to hospital. There she remained for two days and she was attended by her relations. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court has found the case under Section 304B proved against the accused. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no charge under Section 302 IPC was framed. The charge-sheet was not filed under Section 302 IPC. All through, the case of the prosecution was for Section 304B IPC. In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he does not dispute the occurrence but submitted that sentence for life under Section 304B IPC would not have been awarded to accused Hari Singh in the facts and circumstances of the case and the accused deserves to be awarded sentence of seven years as has been provided under Section 304B IPC. This he asserts in consonance with the acquittal under Section 201 IPC. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that a case of Section 302 IPC was not made out but since the death was within seven years of marriage, therefore, a case of Section 304B IPC has been made out which has correctly been stated by the trial court. We have considered the rival submissions and have given our thoughtful consideration. Since a case of only Section 304B IPC has been made out, we consider that instead of life imprisonment, the accused may be granted seven years rigorous imprisonment. Accordingly, we maintain the conviction of the accused Hari Singh under Section 304B IPC, however his sentence is altered to seven years rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentence of all the accused persons under Section 498A is not challenged, hence maintained. However, all the accused are sentenced to the period of sentence already undergone. Accused appellants Bheru Singh and Smt. Sunder are already on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. Accused Hari Singh is behind the bars. He should serve out the sentence of seven years imprisonments as awarded. With the above modification, the appeals are partly allowed. (MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI), J. (BHAGWATI PRASAD), J. bjsh