MUSAFIR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 10/11.8.1999, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 93/1995, State v. Musafir Sharma & 4 Others. In the said trial, five accused persons were tried for the offences under Section 304B, 498A IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. By the impugned judgment and order, all the accused persons including the present appellant were acquitted from the charges framed against them under Section 304B & 498A IPC. Rest of the four accused persons, excluding the appellant, were also acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, the accused appellant Musafir Sharma was convicted for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and was sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rupees one thousand. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to serve out one month's simple imprisonment.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant does not want to argue the case on merit. Citing special reasons and peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, he pleaded mercy of this Court only on the quantum of punishment. He drawn attention of the Court towards Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and submitted that although six months minimum imprisonment is stipulated thereunder, but at the same time, it is also provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months. He submitted that the appellant has already undergone almost one month in the gaol. He further submitted that fine of rupees one thousand, as awarded by the trial court, may be enhanced to rupees ten thousand, which is the maximum amount of fine prescribed under the said Section, and the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced/converted to the period already undergone by the appellant.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant Musafir Sharma was held guilty for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act only on the basis of a letter (Ex. Ka-3) written by him to his counterpart (father of his daughter-in-law) demanding an electric fan and a ring, which were allegedly promised to be given by the parents of bride in the marriage. But when these articles were not given, the appellant wrote this letter. He further submitted that there is no other evidence against the appellant. He also submitted that on the same set of evidence, all other accused persons have been acquitted.