Kuldeep Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 15.12.2011 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 31/2011, wherein the said Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:-

¶17

Conviction	Sentence
U/S 498 -(A)of IPC	R.I. for 03years, with fine amount

¶18

2

¶19

of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment
of fine, to undergo additional R.I.
for 06 months.

¶20

The case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the impugned judgment and the records of the case that on the report of the deceased's brother Uttam Dewangan, a dehati nalishi was lodged at Kurud police station on 17.04.11 to the effect that marriage was solemnized between the deceased Anjali @ Santoshi and appellant on 24^th March, 2010 at Kurund. After marriage, deceased used to live with her husband Kuldeep at her in-laws' house in Kurud. Since three months after the marriage, her husband Kuldeep used to harass Santoshi often by saying that you have not given motorcycle, colour TV, gas cylinder and gold as dowry. When Santoshi came to her parents' house in the month of Ashad in 2010, she told the above thing to Uttam Kumar Devangan, his wife, mother, sister and neighbours. Santoshi was beaten up by her husband Kuldeep Devangan seven months ago in connection with demand of dowry. During the Holi festival in 2011, the deceased Santoshi alias Anjali had come to her parents' house and Uttam Devangan tried to convince Kuldeep not to harass his sister and not to demand dowry, as they were poor people. However, he did not listen to him and continued to harass Santoshi alias Anjali after her marriage. Due to this, to such an extent that she being fed up with this persistent illegal demands hanged herself on 17.04.2011 in her house. The merg of the incident was lodged by the police. Inquest of the dead body was prepared by the police and thereafter dead body sent for postmortem. On the basis of statement of witnesses, the police of police station

¶21

3

¶22

Kurud, District-Dhamtari, registered the offence punishable under section 304(B) of IPC against the accused/appellant under Crime No. 153/2011. During the investigation, the dead body was sent for the postmortem by the police and panchnama was prepared. Further, police seized the property which was relating the offence and spot map was prepared. The statements of witnesses were recorded. The prosecution after completing the due and necessary investigation, led the charge-sheet before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate , who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the appellants for alleged commission of offence under Sections 304-B and 498 of IPC. The appellant/accused having abjured guilt was subjected to trial.

¶23

In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶24

Learned trial Court, after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in inaugural of this judgment.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has not properly evaluated the material available on record and wrongly reached to a conclusion and convicted the appellant and as such the impugned judgement deserves to be set aside. He further submits that

¶26

4

¶27

the appellant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. There are vital omissions and contradictions in the statements of all the witnesses and prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but the learned Trial Court gave perverse findings and thereby wrongly convicted the appellant in the said offence, therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is liable to be set aside.

¶28

Alternatively, he submits that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A of IPC, as imposed by the Trial Court is just and proper, the incident took place in the year 2011, this appeal is pending since 2012, the appellant is now aged more than 45 years and he is remained in jail for more than 07 months and he did not misuse the liberty while being on bail and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶29

Ex adverso , learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the deceased Anjali @Santoshi Dewangan died within 07 years of marriage, solemnized with the appellant and the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellant for demand of dowry. So, the learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted the accused/appellant. So, the appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶30

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

¶31

5

¶32

material available on record including the impugned judgment.

¶33

It is evident from the record of learned Trial Court that it framed charges under Sections 304 (B) & 498 (A) of IPC against the accused/ appellant and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused/appellant of the charge under 304-B of IPC, but convicted him under Section 498 (A) of IPC.

¶34

It is not disputed in this case that the deceased Anjali @Santoshi Dewangan died on 17.04.2011 by hanging herself. It is also not disputed that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized on 24.03.2010 with the appellant.

¶35

Looking to the statements of PW-11 Uttam Dewangan, brother of the deceased Anjali, PW-12 Urmila Dewangan, PW-13 Uma Dewangan, PW-14 Thagiya Dewangan, this Court is of the view that the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the appellant of offence under Section 304-B of IPC and did not commit any illegality or irregularity in the findings so recorded under Section 498-A of IPC. So, the conviction of the appellant is hereby affirmed.

¶36

As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that incident took place in the year 2010 and nearly 15 years have rolled by since then. The appellant is now aged more than 45 years and, he remained in jail for more than 07 months and he did not misuse the liberty, so granted to him, while being on bail and he is facing the lis since 2012 i.e. for about more than 13 years and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶37

6

¶38

Ex consequenti , the appeal is partly allowed . Conviction of the appellant under the aforementioned section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent.

¶39

The appellant is reported to be on bail. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023 the appellant is also directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months alongwith an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶40

The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

¶41

SD/-

¶42

(Rajani Dubey) JUDGE

¶43

AMIT PATEL

Kuldeep Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neeraj Rai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Yadav and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jaswant Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajulal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Vidya Bai Dahariya Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Panchu Lal Pandhre Vs State of Chhattisgarh