High Court · 2025 on 14 Jul 2025

Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2), Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused-appellant namely Sharda Prasad against the judgment and order 12.05.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-III, District- Pratapgarh in Session Trial No.491 of 1999, arising out of Crime No.129/97, P.S.- Ranjiganj, District- Pratapgarh, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 306 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to undergo further three months simple imprisonment.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that a written complaint was given by the complainant -Vrindavan to the Incharge of Police Station- Raniganj on 07.07.1999 at 19:20 hours. According to the same the sister of the informant namely Sarita (deceased) was married to the appellant about three years ago and on reaching matrimonial house, she used to tell the informant and his mother that my husband (appellant herein) talks me in a defamatory manner and in response the informant said that he would talk to her husband about the same and on 07.07.1999,

the informant got the information that her sister died due to fire Page No.2 of 6 and thereafter the informant along with his mother and elder sister reached Sahajwar and saw that the dead body of his sister -Sarita which was in burnt condition in the room. This FIR also indicates that the informant was informed by the villagers that the appellant used to harass his sister on account of which her sister committed suicide by setting herself on fire inside the room. Gram Pradhan of the village also informed the police regarding the incident.

4. On the basis of written report of the informant, an FIR bearing Case Crime No.129 of 1999 was lodged on 07.07.1999 under Sections 498-A, 306 I.P.C. against the accused/appellant.

5. The Investigating Officer thereafter carried out the investigation and after concluding the evidence submitted the charge sheet (Ex.Ka11) under Sections 498-A, 306 I.P.C. against the accused-appellant -Sharda Prasad.

6. After submission of charge sheet, learned Magistrate took cognizance and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Session Trial No.491 of 1991 and charges were framed against the accused/appellant- Sharda Prasad under Sections 498-A, 306 I.P.C. The charges were denied by the accused and, therefore, he was put to trial.

7. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as five witnesses namely informant-Vrindavan (P.W.1), Janki Devi (P.W.2), Rajendra Bahadur (P.W.3), who prepared panchayatnama (Ex.Ka-2), Dr. Mohd. Shahid Ansari (P.W.4), who conducted post-mortem of the deceased, and Ashok Kumar (P.W.5).

8. That after closing of the evidence, statement of accused/appellant were recorded by the trial court under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the prosecution version and it has also been stated that the deceased wanted to marry Page No.3 of 6 one Lalit Verma as she was having affair which him and due to which she committed suicide. To establish his case, the defence examined Ramsukh as D.W.1.

9. It would be apt to indicate that in support of the plea taken in the defence the documentary evidences were filed before the trial court letters (Ex.Kha-1), (Ex.Kha-2), (Ex.Kha-3), admit card and marksheet and copy of the deceased.

10. Informant/Vrindavan (P.W.1) supported the prosecution story before the trial court.

11. The learned trial court after hearing learned counsel for both the parties and upon due consideration of the evidence available on record including the statements which includes statement of the witnesses of fact came to the conclusion that offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is made out against the accused/appellant Sharda Prasad and, therefore, convicted the accused/appellant – Sharda Prasad as aforesaid under Sections 306 I.P.C. and acquitted the accused/appellant – Sharda Prasad for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C.

12. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction, the appellant- Sharda Prasad has preferred the present appeal.

13. It is stated that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Paranagouda and another vs. The State of Karnataka and another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1369, based upon the dying declaration, altered the conviction for the offence under Section 304-B to Section 306 IPC and while imposing the sentence took lenient view and sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone, i.e. 1 year 27 days, with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month simple imprisonment for each of offence. It is also stated that in this case the marriage of the appellant with Page No.4 of 6 deceased was solemnized about three years ago from the date of incident and the deceased committed suicide by setting her ablaze. Para(s) 37 and 38 of the judgment, being relevant, are extracted hereinunder: “37. In the aforesaid background and the evidence on record as already noticed by us hereinabove, it can be safely noted that High Court ought to have examined as to whether accused could have been convicted for an offence for which no charge was framed and not undertaking of such an exercise would result in failure of justice? Thus, it will have to be seen from the facts unfolded in the present case as to whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which they are being tried and whether the main facts sought to be established against them were explained to them clearly and whether they got a fair chance to defend themselves. If the answer is in the affirmative, then necessarily this Court will have to proceed further and examine as to whether accused can be convicted for the offence not charged and if the answer is in the negative it would result in acquittal of the accused for said offence. In the instant case the dying declaration of the deceased would clearly indicate that deceased was mentally traumatized and she was unable to tolerate the torture and harassment meted out by the accused person on account of which she committed suicide. It is this taunting or mental torture which she could not withstand and forced her to commit suicide by self-immolation. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC though charge was not framed. The accused (appellant Nos. 1 and 2) are now aged about 66 and 61 years respectively. They have already spent one year, one month and 27 days in prison. They do not have any past history of criminal record. Hence, a lenient view has to be taken while imposing the sentence.

38. For the reasons afore-stated the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the Sessions Court in SC No.35 of 2011 dated 14.09.2012 as affirmed in Criminal Appeal No.2847 of 2012 by judgment dated 20.07.2022 is hereby modified. The appellants are acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 304B IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 and Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone with fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default to pay the fine to undergo one month simple imprisonment for each of the offence.” Page No.5 of 6

14. Based upon the judgment passed in the case of Paranagouda (supra) as also the period lapsed i.e. about 26 years from the date of incident and also the period of incarceration, i.e. about 27 months, it is further stated that, upholding the conviction, on sentence lenient view may be taken in this case of the appellant.

15. Learned A.G.A. supported the judgment under appeal but could not dispute the aforesaid.

16. Considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

17. In the instant case from the facts of the case including the statement of the witnesses of fact it appears that the deceased was mentally traumatized and she was unable to tolerate the torture and harassment meted out by the accused and on account of the harassment and mental torture, which she could not resist/withstand, the deceased committed suicide and in this view of the matter, this Court finds no illegality in the judgment of conviction under appeal. Accordingly, conviction of accused- appellant is upheld for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C.

18. In view of above as also taking note of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Paranagouda (Supra), I am of the opinion that on the sentence of the accused-appellant, who has already spent 27 months in prison and has no criminal history, a lenient view has to be taken.

19. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the Sessions Court in Session Trial No.491 of 1999 (Supra) on sentence of the accused/appellant is hereby modified. The accused/appellant- Sharda Prasad is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone with fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence indicated above and in default to pay the fine to undergo one month simple imprisonment. Page No.6 of 6

20. The accused/appellant is on bail and accordingly, his personal bond is cancelled and sureties are discharged.

21. Let a copy of this judgment and record be sent forthwith to the trial court concerned. Order Date :- 14.07.2025 Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench