1 - Meena Bai Yadav, Wd/o late Dilip Yadav, aged about 38 years, R/o v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through:- Police Station Kawardha, District- Kabirdham
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:16524 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 731 of 2007 1 - Meena Bai Yadav, Wd/o late Dilip Yadav, aged about 38 years, R/o Adarsh Nagar, Kawardha, Tahsil Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through:- Police Station Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 08.04.2025 1. The appellant in this appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.08.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) in 2 Sessions Trial No. 16/2007 whereby the appellant stands convicted under Section 201 read with Section 302 of IPC and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s. 201 read with Section 302 of IPC R.I. for 5 years 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.11.2006 at about 02:50 p.m., complainant- Kamla Bai informed the police alleging that her son deceased namely Harbhajan Singh was residing in the house of the appellant and on receiving information that the health of her son is not well, she reached the said place, she came to know that her son was died. It is further alleged that she saw some abrasion mark on the neck of the deceased and also found that some turmeric (Haldi) over the neck portion therefore, she doubted about the death of her son and immediately informed the police station. Thereafter, the police investigated the said matter and offence was registered against the appellant U/s 302 & 201 of I.P.C. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned trial Court for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC followed by framing of charges accordingly, to which appellant abjured her guilt and prayed for trial. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also 3 recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which she denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In her defence, the accused/appellant did not adduce any evidence. 4. Learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 302 of IPC and convicted the appellant and sentenced her as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Court is bad, illegal, perverse and contrary to law applicable to the facts and circumstances and evidence available on record. The learned trial Court ought to have appreciated that the important ingredients under Section 201 of IPC, are not proved by the prosecution against the appellant. Learned trial Court found that the main offence under Section 302 of IPC is not proved against the appellant and convicted her under Section 201 read with Section 302 of IPC. The learned trial Court failed to draw a presumption in convicting the appellant under Section 201 of IPC that the accused has actively participated in the matter of causing disappearance of evidence. The learned trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and gave
Decision
wrong finding. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 4 Alternatively, she submits that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellant under the aforesaid section as imposed by the trial Court is just and proper, considering the fact that the appellant has remained in jail for more than 10 months; this appeal is pending since 2007; appellant is middle aged person, she has no criminal antecedent, the appellant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by her. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court having appreciated the overall oral and documentary evidence has rightly recorded a finding of guilt against the appellant which needs no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being sans merits is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed the charges under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC against the appellant. After appreciating oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 302 of IPC and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 9. Upon perusal of the record, it is clear from statement of Dr. Santosh Luniya (P.W.-1) who conducted the post mortem of the 5 deceased that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 10. Kamla Bai (P.W.-11) who is mother of the deceased stated that the deceased was living with the accused/appellant and after receiving the information about her son’s death, she reached the place where she found that the appellant had applied the turmeric over the neck of the deceased. 11. Learned trial Court in its judgment found that the prosecution has failed to proved this fact that the appellant/accused killed the deceased Harbhajan Singh beyond reasonable doubt but deceased was found dead in the house of the appellant and it is the duty of the appellant to inform the police about unnatural death of the deceased but despite that, she tried to destroy/hide the evidence. The learned trial Court minutely appreciated the statements of all witnesses and appreciated the oral and documentary evidence including the medical evidence and thereby convicted the appellant as mentioned above. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence of witnesses as well as medical evidence, therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 201 r/w 302 of IPC is affirmed. 13. As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that incident took place in the year 2006 and nearly 19 years have rolled by since then; appellant is a lady and a middle aged person; she remained in jail for more than 10 months, the appellant is on bail 6 since long and did not misuse the liberty so granted, hence taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the sentence awarded under Section 201 r/w 302 of IPC to the appellant by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by her. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of the appellant under Section 201 r/w 302 of IPC, the sentence imposed thereunder by the trial Court is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by her. 12. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, her bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 13. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV