Rajulal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 27.12.2014 passed by Learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 178/2011, wherein the said Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:-

¶18

2

¶19

Conviction	Sentence
U/S 498 -(A) of IPC	R.I. for 03 years, with fine amount
	of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment
	of fine, to undergo additional R.I.
	for 01 month.

¶20

The case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the impugned judgment and the records of the case is that on 02.09.2010 at about 1:45 pm, an oral report was lodged by Kotwar Raghunath Patel of village Ringni regarding death of Santoshi Thakur wife of the appellant/Rajulal. As per version of Kotwar, Rajulal came to his house on 01.09.2010 at midnight and told him that his wife died by setting herself ablaze thereafter, with Vice President Ramsagar, Member of the Janpad Panchayat the Kotwar went to verify the same and saw the victim burning in her bedroom and was dead. As such, a morgue No. 69/2010 vide Ex. P/07 was registered and formal proceedings were done by the police. During the investigation, the dead body was sent for the postmortem by the police and panchnama was prepared. Further, police seized the property and some important material like 5 ltrs Kerosene oil without lid, matchbox, clothes worn by the deceased and the accused/appellant and other things were seized from spot and spot map was prepared.

¶21

After completion of the due and necessary investigation, the prosecution 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 appellant for alleged commission of offence under

¶22

3

¶23

Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC. The appellant/accused having abjured guilt was subjected to trial.

¶24

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

¶25

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/appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment dated 27.12.2014 is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, liable to be set aside. In the present case, the offence does not fall under the cruelty and demand of dowry, as defined under Section 498-A of the IPC. The appellant has not ever demanded for dowry and as per version of PW-10 father of deceased, appellant has a good relation with his wife (deceased) and appellant had quarrel with deceased only regarding partition of ancestors property with brother of the appellant. As per the court statement of PW-10 father of the deceased, his daughter never apprised him regarding demand of dowry and only she was angry with the appellant regarding issue of partition of ancestor property. As per statement of sister of deceased (PW-12) and mother (PW-14) and also this fact came that there was a quarrel between the deceased and appellant regarding partition of land and she never told her regarding demand of dowry, hence, there are various

¶27

4

¶28

contradictions and omissions, by which the conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A of the IPC is erroneous and bad in the eye of law. The learned trial Court's findings given against the appellant is perverse and contrary to evidence on records consequently the same is liable to be set aside. The learned trial Court has failed to observe that the prosecution has completely failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, hence the impugned conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside.

¶29

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 2010, this appeal is pending since 2015, the appellant is now aged more than 42 years and he has remained in jail for more than 05 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.

¶30

Ex adverso , learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the deceased Santoshi Thakur 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. As such, the appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶31

5

¶32

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the 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 306 & 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 306 of IPC, but convicted him under Section 498 (A) of IPC.

¶34

It is not disputed in this case that the deceased Santoshi Thakur was wife of the appellant, who died on 01.09.2010 by setting herself ablaze.

¶35

Looking to the statements of PW-01 Chhanulal, PW-02 Smt. Nandini Thakur, PW-03 Raghunath Patel, PW-04 Shankar, PW-08 Ramsagar , PW-10 Bhadulal, PW-11 Rajendra Kumar Vishwakarma, PW-12 Smt. Manju Thakur, PW-13 Madanlal Thakur, PW-14 Smt. Vedbai, PW-15 Theekam Thakur, it is clear that the accused after drinking alcohol tortured his wife/deceased due to which she committed suicide. This Court is of the view that the learned trial Court has minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly acquitted the appellant of offence under Section 306 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 under Section 498-A of IPC is hereby affirmed.

¶36

As regards quantum of sentence, keeping in view the facts that incident took place in the year 2010, this appeal is pending since 2015, during pendency of this appeal, the appellant has never misused the liberty so granted to him while being on bail; appellant is now aged more than 42 years, he has remained in jail for more than 05 months. In these

¶37

6

¶38

circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in again sending them to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be met if they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them for offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

(Rajani Dubey) JUDGE

¶44

U.K. Raju

Rajulal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajulal 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

Smt. Vidya Bai Dahariya Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Panchu Lal Pandhre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kuldeep Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh