AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.K. Rathi, J.—B.K. Ratand over a copy sion under Sections 397/401, Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the order dated 22.8.1998, passed by 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge. Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1997.
List has been revised. None is present.
However, I have gone through the order and the record. The facts giving rise to this revision are as follows:
The complainant Smt. Babeeta, daughter of Magan Deo, was married on 20.4.1993 with revisionist Om Prakash. She gave an application to S.P., Muzaffarnagar on 12.12.1993, on that application an F.I.R. was recorded under Sections 323, 498A, I.P.C. and u/s 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicant and six other members of family. The police after investigation of the case submitted charge. The learned Magistrate after recording evidence convicted accused persons for the offence under Sections 323/498A, IPC and u/s 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment and fine. Aggrieved by that order. Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1997 was preferred in which impugned order was passed. The appeal was partly allowed and conviction and sentence of six accused was set aside. However, the conviction and sentence of Om Prakash was maintained and he was sentenced to undergo one year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 u/s 498A, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 u/s 323, IPC and also fine of Rs. 500 u/s 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act and sentences in default. Aggrieved by this order, present revision has been filed.
I have carefully gone through the evidence. An FIR was lodged by Smt. Babeeta, wife of Om Prakash against him. There is allegation of cruelty and demand of dowry and assault. It is alleged that complainant and her father were assaulted on 4.10.1993. Both were examined to prove the case. One contusion and one abrasion were found on the person of Magan Deo and three contusions were found on the person of Smt. Babeeta. In my opinion, the applicant was rightly convicted.
As regard sentence, same is not severe.
Revision is accordingly lit to be rejected. The trial court will send the applicant to jail to serve out the sentence and will take steps for the recovery of fine.