SARVAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26th May, 2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, District Unnao in Session Trial No. 669 of 2009 arising out of Case Crime No. 1635 of 2009, P.S. Gangaghat, District Unnao, convicting the appellant under Sections 304-B I.P.C. and Section 4 of D.P. Act and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment under Sections 304-B I.P.C. with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default whereof he was ordered to undergo further one year imprisonment. Appellant was also sentenced to undergo two years imprisonment under Section 4 of D.P. Act with fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of which, further three months' imprisonment was ordered. The sentences, so awarded, were to run concurrently.

(2.) The appeal has been filed on several grounds, but learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he is only challenging the sentence of the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. on the ground that; (i) the charge was framed under Section 302 I.P.C. and the appellant was acquitted, as the evidence on record does not disclose any extra-ordinary perverse or idolic act on the part of the appellant-accused to take an extreme view of the matter, (ii) at the time of commission of the offence, i.e., on 26.06.2009, appellant-accused was aged about 30 years and as on date, he is aged about 40 years; and (iii) he has no previous record of crime. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his contention relied on various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the cases of Sunil Datt Sharma Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2014) 4 SCC 375 and Hemchand Vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 727.

(3.) On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the grounds taken by the appellant on the point of sentence. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681, he submitted that in the present case, the deceased was found dead in the house of the appellant and, therefore, no interference is required by this Court.