Sushila Bai, D/o Manglu Gond, aged about 35 years, R/o Thakurpara Kotagaon, Police Station v. State of Chhattisgarh, through: The Police Station Mahamaya, District Durg
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2025:CGHC:35431 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1028 of 2008 Sushila Bai, D/o Manglu Gond, aged about 35 years, R/o Thakurpara Kotagaon, Police Station Mahamaya, District Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant (In Jail) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through: The Police Station Mahamaya, District Durg (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, P.L. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 23.07.2025 1. The appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District- Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 13/2008 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- 2 Conviction Sentence U/S 307 of I.P.C. R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for 06 months. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the morning of 17.02.2008, Savli Bai (complainant) was scolding and abusing Manoj who is her maternal grand son. Listening to the filthy words of Savli Bai the present appellant thought that the complainant is indirectly abusing her, therefore, altercation took place between Savli Bai and the accused/appellant who are mother and daughter. As the quarrel progressed, they reached near the well situated at Thakurpara, village Kotagaon for the purpose of doing their daily routine like bathing, washing etc. After some time, the quarrel between them increased and there was a scuffle between the two as well, the complainant took her bucket to fill the water, at that time the appellant by saying that on the name of children you were abusing me and then she pushed her into the well, as the surrounding of the well was wet and is at ground level and it was not covered with the boundary, the complainant/Savli Bai injured her leg, slipped and fell into the well, due to which the complainant Savli Bai sustained injury on her back and leg, Kamleshwari saw her falling into well and she shouted for help, as such Dev Narayan, Manoj went inside the well, whereas the rest of the people were pulling them with a rope, by doing so, they rescued the complainant and brought her home. Sarpanch and rest of the villagers came to see the complainant, there she disclosed the entire incident to the Sarpanch and the Sarpanch Panchu Ram filed a written report at 3 Police Station Mahamaya, and the police registered crime number as 01/2008 and started investigating the case and registered the case under Section 307 of IPC. During the investigation the complainant Savli Bai was sent for medical examination and upon the suggestion of the doctor she underwent X-Ray, after inspecting the place of the incident, spot map was prepared by the Patwari and the police also prepared the spot map. 3. Thereafter, the accused was taken into custody and the statement of the accused person/appellant and other relevant witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balod (C.G.) and the case was committed to the Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District-Durg (C.G.) for offence under Section 307 of IPC. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein she denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against her and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, no witness has been adduced in her defence. 5. Learned trial Court after completion of trial and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by its impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not challenging the conviction part of the impugned judgment, however, he has confined his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. The learned 4 trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, he submits that the incident took place in the year 2008, this appeal is pending since 2008, at that time the accused/appellant was aged about 35 years, now she is aged more than 50 years; she has remained in jail for more than 11 months, she has never misused the liberty while being on bail, as such in the interest of justice the appellant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by her. 7. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the present accused/appellant, so this appeal is being devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 9. Looking to the statement of the complainant (PW/01) Savli Bai who was mother of the appellant, it is clear that appellant quarreled with her and pushed her due to which she fell into the well. (PW/02) Kumari Kamleshwari, (PW/03) Panchuram, (PW/04) Ram Swaroop, (PW/05) Dev Narayan, (PW/06) Manoj Kumar Thakur, (PW/07) Laleshwar, 5 (PW/08) Ramdayal Gond, (PW/09) Chain Singh Sahu and (PW/10) Rikhi Ram have supported the statement of the complainant. Doctor N. K. Thakur (PW/11) has examined the complainant Savli Bai and found injuries on her body and gave his report vide Ex. P/06 and as per Ex. P/06, he found fractures in ankle of the complainant. B.R. Singh (PW/13) Investigating Officer has also categorically stated against all proceedings. As such, looking to the statement of witnesses and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellant under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. As such, the conviction of the appellant is hereby maintained. 10. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2008 and this appeal is pending since 2008. The appellant is now aged more than 50 years; and she has remained in jail for more than 11 months, she did not misuse the liberty so granted to her while being on bail, thus considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2008 and the total detention period of the accused/appellant, this Court is of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be served if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by her under Section 307 of IPC. 11. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of the appellant under Section 436 of IPC, she is sentenced to the period already undergone by her in the aforesaid Section. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. 12. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the 6 appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in the like amount before the court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 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 U. K. Raju