The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur disposed of a criminal appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 306 IPC. The court maintained the conviction by allowing the sentence portion of the appeal.
Conviction maintained. Sentence of rigorous imprisonment reduced to period already undergone. Fine enhanced from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 12,000.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
/// //// / /// / ///I//l l /////I
aggw» rm“ Ewimaf§
m THE HIGH COU‘ET OF‘ MADHYA PRAD‘SH AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No. ”D? /9§ Ap‘pELgEg J" PRANLAL CHOUHAN, » iln jail) /"' A4 son of°hr1 $hiVprasad Chouhan, aged about 29 years res1dent of Bhagat Slngh Colo'ny, Korba, Distt. Bilaspur w a!’” Versus ‘ RESPONEENT . . . State of M.P.,/ 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‘é fine of Rs. 2,00G/-,:’1n default: Qf‘wh payment of fine, 5.1;for 3 months. ék
mGHCOURTOFCHHATHSGARHATBmASPUR'
(Hon.Mr.JusticePritinker ijiwaker)
i
Criminal Appeal No. 1107 of 1995
1 APPELLANT Pranlal Chouhan . VERSU S t RESPIONDENTr State of Madhya Pradesh \ t Shri Ravi Bhagat counsel forthe appellant. g Shri Vivek Sharma PL for respondent/State R[IMINALi APPEAL UNDER SECTION .574 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRlMiNAL PROCEDURE V. JUDGMENT (03082010)
APPELLANT
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 I allegetij that in the intervening night of 21/22 12 1992 deceased Urmila Bai committed SUICide by Jumping before the runrting train On 22 12 1992 merg intimation (ExP5)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
w ' ‘
3.’ as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has So 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 pladede his innocence and false implication in the Case.
‘ 1Ww
0-1”
l ‘Counsel 6. for the appellant submits that he is not pressing thi‘ appeal as far as it relates to conVIction partofthe Judgmentimpugne 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 i no serious objection. ., 7. In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the l impugned judgment is maintained. Appellant is reported to have“ .remain‘ed in jail for two years and 10 months, the incident took place about 18 years back and therefore in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, sentence imposed on him is reduced to the periodlalreadyundergone 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 within the aforesaid period shall make the appellant liable for one and half ’ I l yearimprisonment.
Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 306 IPC should be allowed.
Whether the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment should be reduced considering the appellant has already undergone imprisonment.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pranlal Chouhan
State of Madhya Pradesh
Pritinker Diwaker
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
