Imtiyaj Ansari, son of Nizamuddin, aged about 22 years, resident of Ranpur Khurd, Takiya v. State Of Chhattisgarh through PS Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.09.25 13:35:10 +0530 2025:CGHC:48857 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 658 of 2005 Imtiyaj Ansari, son of Nizamuddin, aged about 22 years, resident of Ranpur Khurd, Takiya Road, PS Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG) --- Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh through PS Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG) --- Respondent For appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sushil Dubey, Adv. For Respondent : Ms. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) Judgment on Board 23/09/2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8- 8-2025 passed by learned 5th Upper Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Ambikapur, Surguja (CG) in Sessions Case No. 370/2004, whereby the appellant / accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the India Penal Code (in brevity ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/- and in 2 default of payment of fine, to undergo 6 months’ additional RI. 2. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that, marriage of appellant/accused was solemnized with Afsana on 24-4-2003. After marriage, appellant/accused and his family members started harassing deceased Afsana on account of dowry, therefore, on 15-6-2004, she committed suicide by hanging herself. Merg was lodged in PS Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja. Inquest (Ex. P-3) of the dead body of the deceased was conducted, spot map (Ex P-5) was prepared, post mortem upon the dead body of deceased was conducted by Dr. J.K. Bhutani (P.W. 1), in which, vide his report Ex. P-1, he opined that death of the deceased occurred due to asphyxia caused by hanging. Based on merg report, FIR (Ex. P-4) was lodged in PS Ambikapur against the appellant, his brother and mother. Statement of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Accused persons were arrested vide Ex. P-7, Ex. P-8 and Ex. P-9. After due investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 306 of the IPC was filed by the police before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur against the appellant, his brother and his mother. 3. Charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC was framed and explained to the appellant and other accused persons, who absurd their guilt. 4. In order to prove the guilt of accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 9 documents, statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 3 were recorded in which, they denied all the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and their false implication, but they have not examined any witness in their defence. However, they exhibited two documents i.e. police statement of Fatima Bibi and Mumtaj Ansari as Ex. D-1 and D-2. 5. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, acquitted all the three accused persons from the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC, but convicted the appellant/accused under Section 498A of the IPC instead of offence under Section 306 of the IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that he does not want to press instant appeal so far as conviction part of the judgment is concerned, rather he would confine his argument only to the sentence part. He would further submit that, appellant/accused was arrested on 18-6-2004 and has remained in custody till 22-8-2005 i.e. 1 year, 2 months and 4 days. The appellant/accused has already deposited fine amount. He further submits that he is a labour class person, he has not committed any other offence. Even after conviction, he is living peaceful life. Therefore, his jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, while supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the argument advanced by counsel for the appellant/accused and submitted that no interference is called 4 for in the impugned order of sentence also against the appellant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record of the trial Court. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused has not argued on conviction part of the impugned judgment and also the fine sentence. Even otherwise after perusal of the entire evidence, conviction awarded to the accused/ appellant is found to be proper and no interference is required in conviction part of the judgment. 10. So far as sentence is concerned, keeping in view the fact that, the appellant/accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC instead of Section 306 of the IPC, no previous criminal antecedent of appellant is available on record, out of the jail sentence of 3 years, the appellant has already served more than 1 year, 2 months and 4 days, the incident is of the year 2004, considering the totality of the case, no useful purpose would be served in upholding the jail sentence imposed against the appellant/accused by the trial Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, ends of justice would be served, if appellant/accused is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 11. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant/accused under Section 498-A of the IPC is maintained, but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court shall remain intact. 12. Consequently, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part to the extent 5 indicated herein-above. 13. The appellant/accused is said to be on bail. He need not surrender. The bail bonds furnished by him shall remain in operation for a further period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 14. Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Sd/- JUDGE pathak