Partly allowed

Laxmi Prasad Sahu v. the State of M.P.

Chhattisgarh HC22 Nov 2017CRA/3073/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against sentence under Section 498A IPC. Court upheld conviction but reduced sentence to period already undergone due to 20-year trial delay, imposing fine payable to complainant with default imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine of Rs.3,000 imposed payable to complainant within one year; default imprisonment of two months.

Laxmi Prasad Sahu Vs the State of M.P. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGHCOURTdR CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR

¶4

CRA No. 3073 of 1999

¶5

Laxmi Prasad Sahu, S/o St'irrParetan Sahu, aged 30 years, r/o Nayapara Chakarbhata, District Bilajspur

¶6

-—Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of M.P, through Station hlouse Officer, Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur.

¶9

-— Respondent

¶10

ForAppellant : S,hri' Saurabh Sharma & Shri T.Nande, Advocates For Respondent : ^rnt Madhu Nisha Singh, Panel Lawyer.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker

¶12

Judaement

¶13

22/11/2017

¶14

l. This appeal arises out of thejudgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.10.1999 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (CG) in S.T. No.318/98:iconvicting the accused/appellant under Section 498A of thelndian Penall iCode (for short 'the IPC') and sentencing him to undergo R.l. for 1 year.

¶15

As per prosecution case^,on 9.6.1997 complainant Sukriti Bai, wife of appellant herein, lodged JFIR (Ex.P-5) alleging in it that for the last about five years her husband (accused/appellant) is continuously harassing and treating hep with cruelty;. On 8.6.1997 the accused/appellant poured kerosene oil on her with jintention to commit her murder, however, before he couid light the fire sthe 'managed to flee from there. Based on this, offence under Sections 307 & 498A of IPC was registered against the

¶16

vwsff^

¶17

!,:I;:;"n;;:il.i' ! : ^•.^:n.^.^:

¶18

accused/appellant. On ccjmpletjon of investigation, charge sheet was filed ' ': ;h; ^. against accused/appellanf for the offence punishable under Sections 307 ./^'; & 498A IPC followed byi|raming;of charges by the Court below under the aforesaid sections. 11 ^ j, ;i:! :::'.: ;: :i.^: i^ 'h', ^^. 3. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges levelled against •!J I; accused/appellant examined; 14 witnesses in all. Statement of i ' ; accused/appellant was r^corded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he i abjured his guilt and pleaded inhocence & faise implication. "T " 1'1,1';

¶19

~^-.

¶20

¶21

After hearing counsel forthe parties and considering the material available •^''[•.

¶22

on record, the trial Cciurt by the impugned judgment, convicted & 1 • :'.'

¶23

sentenced the accused/appellant as described above. !

¶24

Learned counsel for accuised/appellants submits that he is not challenging the conviction of the appellant but is confining his argument only to the • ! • • ' :-' , '• quantum part of the sentence. He submits that the appellant is facing trial since the year 1997 anjd :thus he has already suffered the agony of i protracted trial, spanningjover a period of almost two decades. Appellant was 30 years of age at the time of occurrence and that he has already undergone sentence forfa period of two months. Considering all these ;r aspects, the ends ofjusticeiwould be served if by upholding the conviction of appellant under SeGtjon:.498A IPC, he is sentenced to the period already undergone. ; | ;.; r| :i .' •

¶25

On the other hand, suppdrting jthe impugned judgment learned counsel for the State submits that ccinsidering the gravity of offence, the punishment r" .; • ,

¶26

imposed upon the appellaht is proportionate to the act committed and therefore there is no juslification in reducing the same.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and

¶28

¶29

impugned judgment of thejtrial |iSourt.

¶30

Ramkumar Dhuri (PW--li)Jis the|witness of seizure memo of Ex.P-1 & P-2 by which terricot saree,| peticoat and soil stained with kerosene oil were seized.

¶31

Smt. Pardeshi Bai (PW-2^ and Neeraj Pandey (PW-3) have not supported the prosecution case and| turned hostile.

¶32

Sukrita Bai (PW-4) is thie complainant. According to this witness, her ;1 marriage with the accus^d/appellant was solemnized 12 years ago. After 4-5 years of marriage, the accused/appellant started beating her under the influence of liquor. He used to threaten her to oust her from the house. He was not providing food to her. On the fateful night at about 10-11, her husband with intent to her poured kerosene oil on her and when he went inside the room to b:ring matchstick to light the fire, she went running to the house of one Neeraj Pandey. She had lodged the report of incident vide Ex.P-5.

¶33

ll. Radha Bai (PW-5), mjot'her bf complainant, has stated that the accused/appellant used fo beat her daughter after consuming liquor. She has further stated that accusect/appellant once beat the complainant in her presence.

¶34

Ramanuj (PW-6) is a child:jld: witness. He is son of the accused/appellant and the complainant. hle has stated that on the date of incident when his mother was sleeping in; the courtyard the accused/appellant came there and poured kerosene on her mother.

¶35

l3.Dr.(Smt.) S. Jitpure (PW. -7) is the doctor who medically examined the • ,.-!•,: . : .. i. ', complainant vide Ex.P-7 This witness did not notice any smell of kerosene oil coming from| the body or cloth of the complainant.

¶36

w^^

¶37

Khamhan Sahu (PW-8), brbttner of complainant, has also stated that the accused/appellant used; beat1 her sister (complainant) and used to oust her from the house during;nighf hours.

¶38

15.C.K. Singh (PW-9) is;J|;helpQlice person who registered the report. Madanlal Sahu (PW-10) is the;Patwari who prepared the spot map. Dilip Kumar Mitra iis th? who assisted in the (PW-11) police person

¶39

invesfigation. l

¶40

Dr. B.D. Sonwani (PW-12) is the doctor who examined the clothes of the complainant and noticed that smell of kerosene was coming from the clothes ofcomplainant. His report is Ex.P-12.

¶41

l7.In the present case counsel forthe accused/appellant is not challenging the conviction part but praying for reduction of sentence to the period already undergone by accused/appetlant. The Supreme Court in catena of judgements^{hasheldthatjinanappealagainstconviction,theappellate} Court is under duty and 6;bligation to look into the evidence adduced in the case and arrive at an independent conclusion. If the appellant or his counsel submits that he is hot chaltenging the order of conviction, as there is sufficient evidence to connect the accused with the crime, then also the Court's conscience musti be satisfied before passing the final order that the said concession is based-on the evidence on record. Mere acceptance or admission ofthe guiltshould not be a ground for reduction of sentence. Nor can the accused bar|ga|ni with the court that as he is pleading guilty the sentence be reducedi. : i ,

¶42

18.in the light ofthe above principles, this Court proceeds to examine legality of the conviction imposed bn the appellant on the basis of evidence available on record. |

¶43

Close scrutiny of the Vvidence on record makes it clear that the prosecution succeeded in proving that the appellant had subjected the complainant (PW-4) to |pFuelty within the meaning of clause (a) of Explanation appearing belo^Section 498Aof IPC. The complainant (PW4), Radhabai (PW-5) &|Khamhan Sahu, brother of complainant, have categorically deposedl jthat after 4-5 years of marriage, the accused/appellant startedibeating the complainant under the influence of liquor. She was kept! hungry by not providing meals and was also compelled to remain outjiofjithe house during night hours so that out of frustration and depress|ion| she may leave the matrimonial house. ! According to RamanuJ |(PW-6), minor son of accused/appellant and eomplainant, on the datejofiincrdent the accused/appellant came home in drunken condition, quarreljed with her mother (complainant) and thereafter poured kerosene oil on her;mother. This witness is none other than the son of the accused/appejllant and in absence of any motive attributed to him to depose againstjhis father, there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence. It is settledyppsiitiGnthat an offence under Section 498A is made out if the womari' is subjected to physical assault, humiliation, harassment and mentalhtoFture. Here in this case also, the act and conduct of the accused/appellant, as stated above, constitute cruelty as contemplated under Sec;tion;,.498A of IPC. Thus, this Court is convinced that the trial Court did rjip^^commit anyerror in convicting the appellant underSection498AoflPC.;!•;!'

¶44

The only question which irisies for consideration of this Court is as to what would be appropriate senlehce to be imposed upon the appellant?

¶45

Considering the fact thatithe incident is of the year 1997 and a period of f,'. ;„ ! i" .':;,:;; 20 years has already gone, accused/appellant was 30 years of age at the

¶46

time of occurrence and fyrther that he has already suffered sentence for a

¶47

period^{ofabouttwomonjthsyfhjsCourtisoftheconsideredopinionthat} the ends of justice wouldl |be |met if the sentence awarded to him is reduced to period alreaciyj; undergone by imposing fine with default stipulation.

¶48

In the result, the appeal isiallowedin part. White maintaining conviction of accused/appellant unden Section 498A of IPC, the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone. However, sentence of fine of Rs.3,000/is Jimposed on accused/appellant which shall be deposited by him withinh'a period of one year from today before the concerned trial Court. Theifin^e amount, if deposited, would be paid to the complainant (PW-4) as;compensation under the provisions of Section 357 Cr.P.C. after due verificatJQn and in case of default in payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo rigprous imprisonment for a period oftwo months. Appellant is reported to be pn bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.

¶49

23.A copy of this order besent, free of cost, to the accused/appellant on the

¶50

': given^address.

¶51

Sd/Pritinker^Diwaker Judge

¶52

roshan

Laxmi Prasad Sahu v. the State of M.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Prasad Sahu v. the State of M.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Phagua and Another Vs the State of M.P.

Mangal Prasad Yadav Vs State of C.G.

Domar Singh Yadu Vs Shri Shivnandan Chandrakar

Leela Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ramlal Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Gulabdhar Dubey and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh