// ///////////I//l///// / ///llI aggw» rm“ Ewimaf§ m THE HIGH COU‘ET OF‘ MADHYA PRAD‘SH AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No. ”D? 9§ J" Ap‘pELgEg iln jail) /"' PRANLAL CHOUHAN, » A4 son of °hr1 $hiVprasad Chouhan, aged about 29 years res1dent of Bhagat Slngh Colo'ny, Korba, Distt. Bilaspur w Versus State of M.P.,/ a!’” RESPONEENT . . . CRIMINALMAggg‘AA‘ygDER SECTION 374(2)_‘g§_~g§§ CODE OF CRIMINAL pRLCEggRw 191g ‘ ggmvxCTigg gENTENCE U/s 306 of the Lac”?! R.I. for 5 years ao‘ fine of Rs. 2,00G/-,:’1n default: Qf‘wh payment of fine, 5.1;- for 3 months. ék / ‘ é JUDGMENT i (03 08 201 0) Thls‘ appeal Is directed against the Impugned Judgment dated O5 O6 1995 passed by Addltlona| SeSSIons Judge BHaspur m SeSSIons Trla| No. 182/1993 conVIctIng the accused/appenant under Sections 306 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years‘ H and pay fine of Rs 2000 in defauit of payment of fine to further undergo r Simple imprisonment for three months 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the marriage ofthe appellant was s‘olemnized with deceased Urmiia Bai on 10051992 and the accused/appellant used to doubt her character by saying that she is ' havmg Illic1t relation With the father of the accused/appellant It is further Z w mGHCOURTOFCHHATHSGARHATBmASPUR' (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker ijiwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 1107 of 1995 Pranlal Chouhan 1 ' APPELLANT . VERSU S t RESPIONDENT r State of Madhya Pradesh \ t Shri Ravi Bhagat counsel forthe appellant. g Shri Vivek Sharma PL for respondent/State i V . R[IMINAL APPEAL CRlMiNAL UNDER SECTION PROCEDURE .574 (2) OF THE CODE OF allegetij that in the intervening night of 21/22 12 1992 deceased Urmila I Bai committed SUICide by Jumping before the runrting train On 22 12 1992 merg intimation (Ex P 5) was recorded and based on that FIR (Ex P 8) was registered on 13 01 1993 against the accused/appellant . under section 306 of IPC 3.’ So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examided 1O witnesses in support of its case Statement of the ' ‘ aceused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the Charge levelled again t him' and pladed his innocence and false implication in the Case. ‘ e 1 ‘ W 0-1” 4. After hearing the parties the Court below has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant for the offence as mentioned above Hence the present appeal i 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including thejudgment impugned. ‘Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing thi‘ l t t 6. appeal as far as it relates to conVIction part of the Judgment impugne and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only According to him, the InCIdenftook place about 18 years back, that the appellant has already remained in jail for two years and 10 months, no usefulpurpose would be served in again sending him to jail and it would be in the ihterest of justice if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. To this, counsel for the State has no serious objection. i 7. In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the .remain‘ed in jail for two years and 10 months, the incident took place l about 18 years back and therefore in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, sentence imposed on him is reduced to the periodl already undergone by him. However, in lieu thereof, the fine of Rs. 2000 imposed by the Court below is enhanced to Rs. 12 000. This additidnal amount of Rs 1O 000 shall be depOSIted by the accused/appellant in the Court below Within a period ofefive months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failure in depOSIt of fine amount w impugned judgment is maintained. Appellant is reported to have“ ithin the aforesaid period shall make the appellant liable for one and half year imprisonment. l I ’ Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker Judge w .,