Back
2021 Supreme(All) 1302
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, J.
Ajay Singh Chauhan - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 7220 of 2019
Decided On : 01-11-2021
For the Appellant : Ram Vishal Mishra, Bala Nath Mishra, Sanjay Kumar Singh.
For the Respondent: G.A., Purushottam Mani Tripathi.
Point of Law: Punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality which the crime has been perpetrated, enormity of crime warranting public abhorrence and it should 'respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 498-A, 304-B - Dowry Prohibition Act - Section 4 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 313 - Indian Evidence Act - Section 113-B - Dowry Prohibition Act - Section 2 - Appeal against convicted - Examination of accused - Demand of dowry - Daughter of informant was married to accused-appellant - After marriage everything was OK for six months but later on, accused-appellant and his other family members started harassing victim in demand of dowry - She was asked to take from her father to which she expressed her inability to bring money in dowry on ground that her younger sister is to be married - She was continuously subjected to cruelty - Victim used to inform the entire story to her parents on telephone. It was also informed by her that accused-appellant and his family members took out ornaments from her almirah.
Finding of the Court:
Appropriate sentence should be awarded after giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed - obligation of court to constantly remind itself that right of victim, and be it said, on certain occasions person aggrieved as well as society at large can be victims, never be marginalised - Measure of punishment should be proportionate to gravity of offence - Object of sentencing should be to protect society and to deter the criminal in achieving avowed object of law - It is expected that courts would operate sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects conscience of society and sentencing process has to be stern where it should be - Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against individual victim but also against society to which criminal and victim belong - Court find that punishment imposed upon accused-appellant by Trial Court in impugned judgment and order is not excessive and it appears fit and proper and no question arises to interfere in matter on point of punishment imposed upon him.
Result: Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. By this criminal appeal, accused-appellant Ajay Singh Chauhan has challenged the judgement and order dated 09.10.2019 passed by Additional Session Judge / Special Judge (Anti Corruption) Court No. 4, Varanasi in Session Trial No.319 of 2015 (State of U.P. vs. Ajay Singh Chauhan), arising out of Case Crime No.174 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Rohaniya, District Varanasi by which accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-B I.P.C., 2 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 498-A I.P.C. with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and 2 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act with default clause.
2. According to prosecution case, Smt. Chanchal Singh daughter of informant was married to accused-appellant Ajay Singh Chauhan on 06.12.2013. After the marriage everything was OK for six months but later on, accused-appellant and his other family members started harassing victim in demand of dowry. She was asked to take Rs.2,00,000/- from her father to which she expressed her inability to bring money in dowry on the ground that her younger sister is to be married. She was continuously subjected to cruelty. Victim used to inform the entire story to her parents on telephone. It was also informed by her that accused-appellant and his family members took out the ornaments from her almirah. On 19.04.2015 at about 4:00 P.M., informant came to know that her daughter committed suicide. When he reached the house of accused-appellant, he saw that his daughter died. There was no rope in the room.
3. P.W.-1, Vijay Singh Chauhan informant, presented a written tehrir Ex.Ka-2 before the police station concerned whereupon Chick F.I.R. Ex.Ka-10 was drawn by constable Shri Prakash Singh and entry of case was made in general diary, copy whereof is Ex.Ka.11.
4. Inquest was done over the dead body of Smt. Chanchal Singh. Inquest report Ex.Ka.-2 was drawn by Officer concerned P.W.-4 Anand Kumar Kannajiya, Nayab Tehsildar and dead body was sent to mortuary for post-mortem along with relevant papers thereto.
5. Post-mortem was done by P.W.-3 Dr. Satya Prakash over the dead body of Smt. Chanchal Singh. Doctor prepared post mortem report Ex.Ka.-3, noting ante-mortem injuries found on the person of victim. According to doctor death of victim was found due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging.
6. P.W.-5 Mukesh Chandra Uttam, Investigating Officer under took the investigation, visited the spot, prepared site plan, recorded the statements of witnesses and P.W.-6 Ram Sewak, after completing entire formalities of investigation, submitted charge-sheet, Ex.Ka-9 against the accused-appellant before the competent court.
7. Case, being exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, was committed to Session Court which came to be transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 14, Varanasi who framed charges against the accused-appellant under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act to which the accused denied and claimed to be tried.
8. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses, out of whom PW-1 and P.W. 2 are the witnesses of fact and rest are formal witnesses.
9. On closure of prosecution evidence statement of accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by Court explaining all incriminating circumstances and other evidence. Accused denied prosecution story in toto and all formalities of investigation were said to be wrong. He claimed false implication. Suicidal death was claimed.
10. Trial court on appreciation of evidence adduced before it, found the accused-appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as stated above.
11. I have heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Purushottam Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State at l
