Allowed

Lekhraj and Others v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC6 May 2024CRLA/25/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand disposed of a criminal appeal maintaining conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Instead of executing full sentences, the court granted probation to living appellants on bond for one year.

What did the court decide?

Appellants (excluding deceased ones) released on probation for one year on bond of Rs.30,000/- each with a surety.

Lekhraj and Others Vs State of Uttarakhand — Domestic Violence | Uttarakhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 06^TH MAY, 2024

¶3

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 25 of 2008

¶4

Lekhraj and four Others …Appellants

¶5

Versus State of Uttarakhand …Respondent

¶6

Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate. Counsel for the State : Mr. Rakesh Negi, Brief Holder.

¶7

Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

¶8

Present Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.01.2008, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Ist F.T.C., Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.271 of 2006,”State vs. Manoj and Others”, by which, the learned Judge has convicted the appellants-accused persons for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 (in short, “Act, 1961”) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC, and, they have been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act, 1961. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2 . During the pendency of this Appeal, appellantLekhraj and appellant-Sushil alias Chhota died. Present

¶9

¶10

Criminal Appeal was abated in relation to the deceasedappellant Lekhraj and appellant Sushil alias Chhota on 20.03.2024.

¶11

3 . Appellant-Mittar Sen is the brother-in-law (Jeth), appellant-Vipin is the brother-in-law (Dever) and appellant-Smt. Kamla is the mother-in-law of the victim.

¶12

4 . The case of the prosecution is that the sister of Satpal (PW1) was married to Manoj. She was harassed and beaten for demand of dowry.

¶13

5 . Upon conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed.

¶14

6 . Charges were framed. As the appellants-accused pleaded innocence, trial was held.

¶15

7 . The prosecution examined ten witnesses.

¶16

8 . Statements of the appellants-accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The appellants-accused persons have denied all incriminating evidence, produced by the prosecution.

¶17

9 . Heard Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State.

¶18

10 . Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate submitted that Manoj, the husband of the alleged victim, has died. Appellant-Mittar Sen, aged about 48 years, appellantVipin, aged about 41 years and the appellant-Smt Kamla, aged about 78 years, are facing the present matter since the year, 2006. They do not have any criminal antecedents. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate has requested to alter the sentence and grant the benefit of probation to the appellants under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

¶19

¶20

11 . The said submission has not been opposed by Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder appearing for the State. Mr. Rakesh Negi, Brief Holder, submitted that as per the report of the District Probation Officer, Haridwar, the conduct and behavior of the appellants have been found good and there is no criminal case pending against them.

¶21

12 . The matter is pending since, 2006. There is nothing on record to indicate that the appellants had earlier been involved in any unacceptable activities.

¶22

13 . After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it seems appropriate that the sentence, passed by learned Trial Court, against the appellants, should be altered and the benefit of probation should be granted to them.

¶23

14 . Consequently, without altering the findings of the Trial Court, the nature of the sentence is being altered.

¶24

15 . Resultantly, the appellants, namely, Mittar Sen, Vipin and Smt. Kamla be released on probation on good conduct for a period of one year, on their entering into bond of Rs.30,000/- each with one surety of the like amount to appear and receive sentence when they are called during such period. In the meantime, they are directed to keep the peace and be of good behavior. Appellants are further directed to appear before the District Probation Officer, Haridwar, within a period of one week from today.

¶25

16 . Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the District Probation Officer, Haridwar, for necessary action.

¶26

¶27

17 . Present Criminal Appeal (CRLA No.25 of 2008)

¶28

stands disposed of accordingly.

¶29

___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. Dt:06.05.2024 JKJ/Pant

Lekhraj and Others v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lekhraj and Others v. State of Uttarakhand

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

Mahipal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sanu Gazi Alias Mohammad Amzad Gazi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Harjit Isngh Chima Vs Maninder Grewal

Shail Kumar Dutta Vs Sanjeev Ratra

Deoraj Tiwari Vs State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary

Raj Munisha Vs Arvind Kumar Garg