KRISHNA PAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as Shri Shivnath Tilhari, learned AGA and Shri Pradeep Tiwari, Advocate for the State and perused the record.

(2.) This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 20.11.1996 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge,/Special Judge, (E.C. Act) Hardoi, in Sessions Trial No.382 of 1990, under section 304-B IPC, Police Station Atrauli, District Hardoi, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 304-B IPC to undergo seven years R.I. and under section 498-A IPC to undergo two years additional rigorous imprisonment.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the appellant that occurrence took place on 20.12.1985 and by that time Section 304-B IPC was not in existence in Indian Penal Code and the same was brought in vide Amendment dated 19.11.1986. Likewise, Section 113-B of the Evidence Act was also not in existence and by the same amendment it has also been introduced on 19.11.1986., i.e. Act No.43 of 1986. It is thus contended by learned counsel for the appellant that he could not have been convicted under Section 304 B IPC as this provision was not in existence at the time of commission of offence. In that regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Soni Devrajbhai Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat and others, 1991 3 SCR 812, 1991 AIR 2173 and has thus submitted that judgment of the trial court is liable to be set aside so far as it relates to the sentence and conviction with regard to offence under Section 304-B IPC. Learned counsel for the appellant at this stage also submitted that protection given under Article 20 (1) is a complete answer to the appellant's contention and the judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside.