KISAN CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned A.G.A. has already filed objection against the prayer of bail.

(2.) THIS appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant Kisan Chandra, son of Vishwanath, resident of Village Mad-pawna, P.S. Ghanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar, against the judgment and order dated 7.7.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions/Special Judge (B.C. Act), Basti in S.T. No. 202 of 2004 (Case Crime No. 366 of 2003) State v. Kisan Chandra and others, whereby the learned Sessions Judge held the accused guilty under sections 304-B and 498 I.P.C. and section 4 of the D.P. Act, P.S. Ghanghata, district Sant Kabir Nagar. Consequently, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the ac cused to undergo RI for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- under section 304-B I.P.C., to undergo RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- under section 498 I.P.C. and to undergo RI of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- under section 4 of the D.P. Act. The sentence further directs that in case the accused fails to pay the amount of fine, he will further undergo additional RI for one month for each of the offences i.e., under sections 304-B/498-A and sec tion 4 of the D.P. Act. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appel lant contends that all the three accused were tried by the learned Additional Ses sions Judge for the aforesaid offences. THE prosecution allegation against all the ac cused are the same. THE prosecution led the same evidence against all the accused. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the charges levelled against Vish-V wanath and Jheenak were not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, he acquitted them of the charges levelled against them. Since, the evidence led by the prosecution against the accused was the same. THErefore, the charges against the present accused, who is the husband of the deceased could not be held to have been established beyond doubt. THE finding of the learned Sessions Judge as against the present accused apparently appears to be not based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. THE present accused like the other co-accused was also entitled to the benefit of doubt.