Partly allowed

Satish Rathore v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Oct 2025CRLA/1525/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against conviction under Sections 306, 498-A IPC and Section 4 D.P. Act for abetment to suicide, the High Court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the sentence to imprisonment for the period already undergone along with a fine, noting the appellant's lack of criminal record and delay in trial.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and order of conviction is modified. The appellant is to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone (21 months) and pay a fine of Rs. 5000 for each offence, without further rig

Satish Rathore Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1525 of 2014

¶3

Satish Rathore …..Appellant(s) Versus State of U.P. …..Respondents(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ram Naresh Singh Chauhan Counsel for Respondent(s) : Govt. Advocate

¶4

Court No. - 11

¶5

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant namely Satish Rathore s/o Ram Pal Rathore challenging the judgment and order 31.10.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Unnao (in short "Trial Court") in Session Trial No. 165 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No. 109 of 2013, under Sections- 306, 498-A IPC and Section- 4 of D.P. Act, P.S.- Asiwan, District- Unnao thereby convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 306 IPC for four year's rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to pay the amount of fine further to undergo six months' additional rigorous imprisonment, under Section 498-A IPC for one and a half year's rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 2500/- and in default to pay the amount of fine further to undergo three months' additional rigorous imprisonment and under Section 4 of D.P. Act for one year's rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 1000/and in default to pay the amount of fine further to undergo one month's additional rigorous imprisonment.

¶8

The case of the prosecution, as appears from the record, is to the effect that complainant/Jangali Prasad S/o Late Joddi Rathore, R/o Village- Sidhanath, Police Station- Asiwan, District- Unnao gave a

¶9

¶10

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1525 of 2014

¶11

written report on 09.02.2013 at Police Station- Asiwan, District- Unnao stating therein that he married his daughter namely Sunita with accusedappellant/Satish S/o Rampal Rathore R/o Village- Pesari, Police StationAsiwan, District- Unnao about five years ago and after marriage, the appellant started harassing his daughter for insufficient dowry and demand of a motorcycle and on 09.02.2013 at about 1:30 P.M., appellant allegedly killed and hanged my daughter.

¶12

On the basis of aforesaid written report made by the complainant/Jangali Prasad, an FIR registered as Case Crime No. 109/2013 was lodged under Sections- 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section3/4 of D.P. Act at P.S.- Asiwan, District- Unnao against the accusedappellant on 09.02.2013 at about 17.30 P.M.

¶13

Upon completion of investigation, the charge sheet against the accused-appellant was filed under Sections- 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section- 3/4 of D.P. Act.

¶14

After submission of charge sheet before Court of learned Magistrate the said case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 165 of 2013 and charges were framed against the accused-appellant under Sections- 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section- 4 of D.P. Act. The accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed trial.

¶15

In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as may as seven witnesses namely Complainant/Jangali Prasad, (PW-1), Sunil Kumar (brother of deceased) (PW-2), Dr. S.K. Pandey (PW-3), Smt. Kamla (mother of deceased) (PW-4), Naib Tehsildar Alqab Khan (PW5), Head Constable Devi Sahai (PW-6) and S.I. K.C. Gautam (PW-7).

¶16

That after closing of the evidence, statement of accused-appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the trial court explaining the entire evidence and other circumstances, in which the appellant denied the prosecution story and the entire prosecution story was said to be wrong and concocted.

¶17

Thereafter, the learned trial court after hearing learned counsel for both the parties and appreciating the entire evidence oral as well as documentary, found the accused-appellant guilty and convicted him as above.

¶18

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accusedappellant has not been convicted previously for any offence and he is the first time offender. The learned counsel at the outset submits that he is not challenging the impugned judgment and order of conviction and is confining his submission in the appeal only with respect to the order of sentence. It is for the reason that deceased, wife of the appellant, committed suicide within five years of marriage and this aspect of the case was established by medical evidence and also that appellant has already spent about 21 months (1 year and 9 months) in jail as he was arrested on 10.02.2023 and he remained in jail till judgment under

¶20

¶21

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1525 of 2014

¶22

appeal and he was released on bail in terms of the order 13.11.2014 passed by this court. The order dated 13.11.2014 is extracted hereinunder:-

¶23

"Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned State counsel on the prayer for bail and perused the record.

¶24

The appellant has been convicted in Session Trial No. 165 of 2013 under Sections 306, 498A I.P.C. and Section 4 D.P. Act and sentenced to a maximum term of four years' R.I. with fine and default stipulation.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court has erred in appreciating the evidence on record and wrongly convicted the appellant. It is further submitted that there is no plausible evidence of abetment against the appellant. The appellant was in jail since 10.02.2013 and maximum sentence awarded to him under Section 306 I.P.C. is of four years. This appeal may take a couple of years or even more in its final disposal whereas the speedy justice is a fundamental right.

¶26

Let the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned. The fine imposed is stayed till the final disposal of the appeal.

¶27

On acceptance of bail bonds and personal bond, the lower court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this court, for being kept on the record of this appeal."

¶28

It is also stated that in the case of Paranagouda and another Vs. State of Karnataka and another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1369 , the conviction was modified by acquitting the appellants therein for the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act and convicting them for the offence under Section 306 and 498A read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing them to imprisonment for the period already undergone with fine of Rs.5,000/- each. The relevant paragraphs 37 and 38 of the judgment are extracted hereunder:-

¶29

"37. In the aforesaid background and the evidence on record as already noticed by us hereinabove, it can be safely noted that High Court ought to have examined as to whether accused could have been convicted for an offence for which no charge was framed and not undertaking of such an exercise would result in failure of justice? Thus, it will have to be seen from the facts unfolded in the present case as to whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which they are being tried and whether the main facts sought to be established against them were explained to them clearly and whether they got a fair chance to defend themselves. If the answer is in the affirmative, then necessarily this Court will have to proceed further and examine as to whether accused can be convicted for the offence not charged and if the answer is in the negative it would result in acquittal of the accused for said offence. In

¶30

¶31

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1525 of 2014

¶32

the instant case the dying declaration of the deceased would clearly indicate that deceased was mentally traumatized and she was unable to tolerate the torture and harassment meted out by the accused person on account of which she committed suicide. It is this taunting or mental torture which she could not withstand and forced her to commit suicide by selfimmolation. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC though charge was not framed. The accused (appellant Nos.1 and 2) are now aged about 66 and 61 years respectively. They have already spent one year, one month and 27 days in prison. They do not have any past history of criminal record. Hence, a lenient view has to be taken while imposing the sentence.

¶33

38. For the reasons afore-stated the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the Sessions Court in SC No.35 of 2011 dated 14.09.2012 as affirmed in Criminal Appeal No.2847 of 2012 by judgment dated 20.07.2022 is hereby modified. The appellants are acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 304B IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 and Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone with fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default to pay the fine to undergo one month simple imprisonment for each of the offence."

¶34

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand opposed the appeal and has submitted that there is no material irregularity or illegality committed by the court below and keeping in view the evidence on record, accusedappellant has been rightly convicted.

¶35

Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.

¶36

That it is noteworthy that the incident took place way back in the year 2013. The accused-appellant has suffered in the matter for the past about 12 years and there is no any criminal antecedent of him during these years.

¶37

Considering the aforesaid and also the facts and evidence on record including the testimonies of witnesses of fact namely Complainant/Jangali Prasad, (PW-1), Sunil Kumar (brother of deceased) (PW-2) and Smt. Kamla (mother of deceased) (PW-4), medical opinion, which indicates that deceased committed suicide within 5 years of marriage on account of harassment for not fulfilling the demand of motorcycle and also the relevant provisions of law and settled proposition on the issue and also the period lapsed from the date of incident i.e. about 12 years as also the punishment/sentence awarded to the accused-appellant under Sections- 306, 498-A IPC and Section- 4 of D.P. Act, which is justified, I am of the view that lenient view has to be taken with regard to sentence of the appellant.

¶38

¶39

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1525 of 2014

¶40

For the reasons afore-stated, the appeal is allowed in part . The judgment and order of conviction dated 31.10.2014 passed by the Trial Court in Session Trial No. 165 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No. 109 of 2013, under Sections- 306, 498-A IPC and Section- 4 of D.P. Act, P.S.- Asiwan, District- Unnao is hereby modified. The appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone i.e. 21 months, with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default to pay the fine to undergo one month simple imprisonment for each of the offence.

¶41

The accused-appellant shall deposit the fine within two months from today.

¶42

In case of breach of the above condition, the appellant shall be taken into custody and shall have to undergo sentence awarded to him.

¶43

The appellant is stated to be on bail, his personal bond is cancelled and sureties are discharged.

¶44

Let a copy of this judgment and record be sent forthwith to the trial court concerned for compliance.

¶45

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶46

October 6, 2025 Arun/-

¶47

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Satish Rathore v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Rathore v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Pramod Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Addl. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Ram Kripal Alias Nanake Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Suresh and Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Anis vs Deputy Director of Consolidation District Sitapur Camp at Kheri and 5 Others

Rajneesh Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others