Partly allowed

Tejpal Singh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC30 Jan 2018CRLA/561/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that while the plea of alibi would not absolve the appellant due to categorical evidence of dowry harassment, the ten-year sentence for Section 304B IPC was excessive given the 2009 occurrence and lack of aggravating circumstances. The sentence was reduced to seven years, while conviction and sentence under Section 498A IPC were maintained.

What did the court decide?

Sentence for Section 304B IPC reduced from ten years to seven years; conviction and sentence under Section 498A IPC maintained.

Tejpal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Domestic Violence | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 561 / 2011

Tejpal Singh

----Appellant

Versus

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. NS Dhakad PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Judgment

¶10

ORAL

¶11

30/01/2018

¶12

The present appeal has been preferred by Tejpal Singh to assail the impugned judgment dated 30.4.2011, rendered by the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, No.1, Beawar. The said court convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. Having convicted the appellant for above said offences, the trial Judge vide a separate order of even date, sentenced the appellant as under:-

¶13

U/s. 498A IPC- to undergo three years imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default thereof to undergo additional one month imprisonment.

¶14

U/s. 304B IPC- to undergo ten years imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default thereof to undergo additional two months imprisonment.

¶15

All the sentences were ordered to concurrently.

¶16

(2 of 6)

¶17

[CRLA-561/2011]

¶18

Santosh daughter of Jage Singh (P.W.1) one year before the date of occurrence was married with the appellant Tejpal Singh as per Hindu custom and rites. The case of the prosecution as it emerged in the charge is that Smt. Santosh on 20.5.2009, in the night due to maltreatment and harassment caused by Tejpal Singh appellant committed suicide by hanging herself. Thus, the appellant as per prosecution has committed offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial.

¶19

The prosecution to secure conviction of the appellant, examined twelve witnesses, namely Jage Singh (P.W.1), Tikam Singh (P.W.2), Dau Singh (P.W.3), Dr. Hemant Kumar Chauhan (P.W.4), Megh Singh (P.W.5), Devi Singh (P.W.6), Kishan Singh son of Heera Singh (P.W.7), Kishan Singh son of Hem Singh (P.W.8), Hajari Singh (P.W.9), Laxman Singh (P.W.10), Pani Devi (P.W.11) and Manohar Singh (P.W.12).

¶20

Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He took a plea of alibi and stated that on the day of occurrence, he had gone to attend marriage at the house of his paternal aunt (Bhua). He further stated that she was having illicit relation with a boy due to which she committed suicide. In defence, accused examined three witnesses namely Nanga Singh (D.W.1), Mithu Singh (D.W.2) and Girdhari Singh (D.W.3).

¶21

The criminal proceedings in the present case were set into motion on the basis of written report (Exhibit-P/1) presented by Jage Singh (P.W.1) before Chatar Singh (not examined). The

¶22

(3 of 6)

¶23

[CRLA-561/2011]

¶24

written report when translated into English, reads as under:-

¶25

¶26

Shri SHO Saheb,

¶27

Police Station Tatgarh.

¶28

Subject: For initiating legal action.

¶29

Sir,

¶30

I Jage Singh son of Jet Singh Rawat, residents of Guda Bhopat, Thana Siryari, District Pali, submits that my daughter Santosh about one year ago was married with Tejpal Singh son of Mithu Singh Rawat resident of Kana Ki Bair (Tatgarh). I had given dowry and house hold articles, clothes and jewellery as per my capacity. Whenever my daughter used to come to house from house of in-laws, she used to inform that her husband for bringing less dowry after taking liquor used to beat her. Regarding this, I, my brother Dau Singh and my brother from in-laws Sarpanch Tikam Singh had gone to Kana Ki Bair and made Tejpal Singh see reason. I told him that my financial condition is weak but still I will give some money towards dowry. Thereafter, for sometime peace prevailed. But again Tejpal Singh started beating my daughter for bringing less dowry. Yesterday my eldest daughter Pani Devi from her house had gone to house of Santosh and asked my son-in-law Tejpal Singh, Kana Ki Bas not to give beating to my daughter. My son-in-law again and again for bringing less dowry used to harass my daughter due to not fulfilling demand of dowry and after taking liquor used to beat her. Yesterday on 20.5.2009, in the night at about 10:00 PM, I got an information that my daughter fed up with the beating given by her husband and for not satisfying the demand of dowry, had hanged herself and have brought her life to an end. I, my sons Hajari Singh, Laxman Singh and Sarpanch Tikam Singh etc many persons went to Kana Ki Bair (Tatgarh) at place of occurrence and saw that room was closed from inside and my daughter after hanging herself had died. Therefore, it is requested that Santosh for not bringing dowry due to

¶31

(4 of 6)

¶32

[CRLA-561/2011]

¶33

beating given by her husband has committed suicide by hanging herself. I am presenting report. Action be taken.

¶34

Applicant

¶35

Jage Singh son of Jet Singh Rawat, Rajput, R/o Gudha Bhopat, PS Siryari, Jojawar, Marwad Junction, Pali.”

¶36

Dr. Hemant Kumar Chauhan (P.W.4) on 21.5.2009 was posted as Medical Jurist at Beawar. He being member of Medical Board, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Santosh. He proved on record Post Mortem Report as Exhibit-P/6. As per opinion of the Medical Board, the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging.

¶37

Jage Singh (P.W.1) in the court reiterated as to what was stated by him in the written report (Exhibit-P/1). Tikam Singh (P.W.2), Dau Singh (P.W.3) and Megh Singh (P.W.5) Devi Singh (P.W.6) are relations of Jage Singh (P.W.1). Hajari Singh (P.W.9), Laxman Singh (P.W.10) are brothers of deceased Santosh being sons of Jage Singh (P.W.1). Whereas, Kishana Singh (P.W.7) is neighbour of Jage Singh (P.W.1). Pani Devi (P.W.11) is sister of deceased Santosh. They have proved allegations of demand of dowry, maltreatment, harassment caused by the appellant. They stated in categoric terms that the accused appellant under the influence of liquor used to beat his wife Santosh and demand dowry.

¶38

Constable Kishan Singh (P.W.8) had carried the sealed articles to the FSL, Jaipur. Manohar Singh (P.W.12) being investigating officer proved various facets of investigation.

¶39

Nanga Singh (D.W.1), Mithu Singh (D.W.2) and Girdhari Singh (D.W.3) have proved plea of alibi.

¶40

(5 of 6)

¶41

[CRLA-561/2011]

¶42

The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant was not present at the place of occurrence when deceased Santosh had committed suicide. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that it has come in evidence that when parents reached at the place of occurrence, room was locked from inside. Thus, it is a case of hanging and there is no evidence that soon before death, deceased Santosh was harassed on account of dowry.

¶43

On the observation made by this Court that relations of the deceased Santosh in categoric terms have stated that accused was demanding dowry, used to harass her and give beating to his wife, and therefore, plea of alibi will not absolve the appellant of offences, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the sentence of ten years awarded by the trial court is highly excessive.

¶44

The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, rendered in the case of Deen Mohammad @ Murli vs. The State of Rajasthan, D.B. Cr. Appeal No.13/2005, decided on 25.11.2014. In the case of Deen Mohammad @ Murli (supra) relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the cases of Sunil Dutt Sharma vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) , (2014) 4 SCC 375, and Hari Om vs. State of Haryana and Anr., (Cr. Appeal No.1167/2011) decided on 31.10.2014, it was held that court must note aggravating circumstances to award sentence more than minimum prescribed.

¶45

Considering the judgment of this Court in the case of

¶46

(6 of 6)

¶47

[CRLA-561/2011]

¶48

Deen Mohammad @ Murli (supra), taking into account that the occurrence had taken place in the year 2009, and the appellant has suffered protracted trial and there are no aggravating circumstances available on record, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice will be met, in case sentence of ten years awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 304B IPC is reduced to seven years.

¶49

Consequently, the sentence of ten years awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 304B IPC is reduced to seven years. The conviction and sentence for offence under Section 498A IPC as awarded by the trial court is maintained and same shall run concurrently, as ordered by the trial court. Sentence of fine and default clause is maintained.

¶50

In view of above modification in sentence, the present

¶51

appeal is disposed of.

¶52

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J.

¶53

Mak/-

Tejpal Singh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejpal Singh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jamalu Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Dayal Singh and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Mukesh Gujar Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepu Panchal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Prabhu Lal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Indramohan Agrawal Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.