Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.02.07 16:55:04 +0530 2025:CGHC:6893 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 449 of 2023 Yomesh @ Appu Parganiha S/o Jitendra Kumar Parganiha Aged About 35 Years R/o Gondgiri, Outpost Kandaraka, P.S. Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. versus ... Appellant State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant For Respondent/State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 06/02/2025 1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.02.2013 passed by Sessions Judge, Bemetara in Sessions Trial No. 51/2021, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part - II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to fine of Rs. 1,500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 03 months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27.02.2021, the 2 accused had injured his brother-in-law Sachin Nayak by hitting him on his head, hands and legs and had admitted him to Suyash Hospital, Kota, Raipur for treatment. On receiving information about his death on 07.03.2021 during treatment, a case was registered at Saraswati Nagar Police Station, Raipur and Panchnama proceedings were conducted and post-mortem of the body of deceased Sachin Nayak was conducted. Since the place of incident was in the area of Outpost Kandarka Police Station Berla, the case diary was obtained and the original case number was obtained and investigation was taken up. When the accused was found to have committed a crime in the investigation, the crime was registered and investigation was taken up. During the investigation, the accused was interrogated and the weapon used in the case was seized. The accused was arrested and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. During the investigation, it was found that the accused had a dispute with his wife, who is the sister of the deceased, and on the day of the incident also, the accused had gone to his in-laws' house and had an argument. The deceased had dropped the accused at his home in Godgiri. Later, the deceased was going to village Nevnara with his friends to watch a Chhattisgarhi program. The accused stopped him near Godgiri Chowk and started abusing and quarreling. The deceased asked the accused to go home. The deceased and his friends had gone to drop the accused at his 3 home, where the deceased and the accused started fighting again. In the fight, the accused hit the deceased on the head with a mace-like object and the deceased's friends informed the deceased's family. The deceased was taken to the hospital for treatment. He died during treatment. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellant under Section 302 of IPC before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District – Bemetara, wherefrom the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bemetara, who has conduced the trial. 4. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statements of accused person was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evidence available against him, pleaded innocence and false implication and in his defence, he has also examined one witness DW-1. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, Bemetara after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide impugned judgment dated 09.02.2023 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been filed by the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of impugned judgment and is confining his argument to the quantum of sentence only. He submits that incident had taken place on 27.02.2021, there 4 was no pre-meditation and on the spur of moment incident had taken place, it was first offence of appellant and thereafter he had not indulged himself in any other criminal activity. He would further submit that the learned trial Court has sentenced the appellant for five years rigorous imprisonment and as the appellant is in jail since 10.03.2021 and he has already suffered jail sentence of 3 years 10 months and 27 days and has already deposited the fine amount of Rs.1,500/- imposed by the trial Court, therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be suffice to meet the ends of justice. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellant, would submit that looking to the fact that the appellant has caused death of the deceased, leniency should not be shown to appellant herein. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 9. Though learned counsel for appellant has not challenged conviction of appellant and confined his prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the trial Court. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record. 10. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant herein and that being the 5 position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellant is guilty for offence punishable under Sections 304 Part – II of IPC. 11. As regards quantum of sentence, considering the fact the appellant is in jail since 10.03.2021 and has already suffered jail sentence of 3 years 10 months and 27 days and has already deposited fine amount of Rs. 1,500/- imposed by the trial Court, therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may suffice to meet the ends of justice, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be served if the sentence awarded to appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 12.
Decision
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of appellant under Section 304 Part - II of IPC is hereby affirmed. Sentence imposed upon the appellant under aforementioned Section is hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him. 13. It is stated that the appellant is in jail. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 14. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil/Chandra