R.M.Chauhan, J. - (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. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant Kauleshwar had married his daughter Anita to accused Kisan Chandra, son of Vishwanath, resi dent of Village Madpawna, P.S. Ghang hata, District Sant Kabir Nagar, sometimes three years back prior to the date of occur rence, when she went to her nuptial home following her marriage, her husband Kisan Chandra, her father-in-law Vishwanath and her younger father-in-law (Uncle in law) Jheenak expressed their dissatisfaction over the dowry, her father had presented to accused Kisan Chandra. They started a fresh demand of a golden chain and motor cycle from the deceased in the form of dowry. When their demand was not satis fied, they used to harass and torture her. They lastly caused her death on 31.10.2003 for demand of dowry. The complainant lodged the first information report of the occurrence at P.S. Ghanghata. The Investi gating Officer after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences, which later on gave rise to session trial as mentioned above. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A on the prayer of bail during the pendency of ap peal.
(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. The learned Counsel further con tends that in this case, accused is in jail since 30.10.2003. In this way, he has spent in jail more than the half sentence awarded by the Trial Court to him. There is no pos sibility that the appeal will be heard on merit in near future. The accused therefore, should not be detained till the disposal of the appeal. The accused deserves to be re leased on bail.;