• Lakhan Sonkar, S/o Tiharu Ram Sonkar, aged about 36 years, R/o Bamlai para v. • State of Chhattisgarh Through : Station House Officer, Police Station – Dhamtari, District
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:45260 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1140 of 2007 • Lakhan Sonkar, S/o Tiharu Ram Sonkar, aged about 36 years, R/o Bamlai para Dhamtari, Police Station – Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Appellant versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through : Station House Officer, Police Station – Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent/State For Appellant : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. For Respondent : Mrs. Sunita Sahu, P.L. For Complainant : Mr. Sameer Rigari, Advocate. Hon'ble
Legal Reasoning
this Court in the matter of Sanjay Bachad vs. State of Chhattisgarh, passed in CRA No. 223 of 2007. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel supporting the impugned judgment submits that the offence under Section 307 IPC is not compoundable. So this application and the appeal both are liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8 9. It is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charge under Section 307 of IPC against the appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 307 of IPC. 10. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of complainant – injured Smt. Sangeeta (PW- 13), Baliram (PW-1), brother of appellant, Durga Sonkar (PW-2), nephew of appellant, Dukalabai (PW-3), Ganeshi Bai (PW-4), sister-in-law and Sanjay Kumar (PW-14), son of appellant, establish the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question and as per the report (Ex.P-21 and P-21) of Dr. Gaurav (PW-18), complainant (PW-13) sustained injuries which were dangerous to her life. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed. 11. Complainant Sangeet (PW-13), wife of appellant has filed an I.A. No. 01/2025 for compounding the offence along with her affidavit, stating therein that the complainant and the 9 appellant are now living happily and they have settled their dispute/matter for future of their family and welfare of the children. Therefore, the complainant wants to close the case against the appellant. 12. Though the appellant and the complainant entered into a compromise, the offence under Section 307 of IPC is not compoundable and therefore, I.A. No. 01/2025 is dismissed. 13. As regards sentence part, the Supreme Court in the matter of Baldev Singh and others vs. State of Punjab1 has held as under :- 4. Section 376 is a non-compoundable offence. However, the fact that the incident is an old one, is a circumstance for invoking the proviso to Section 376(2)(g) and awarding a sentence of less than 10 years, which is ordinarily the minimum sentence under that provision, as we think that there are adequate and special reasons for doing so. 5. On the facts of the case, considering that the incident happened in the year 1997 and that the parties have themselves entered into a compromise, we uphold the conviction of the appellant but we reduce the sentence to the period of sentence already undergone by in 1 (2011)13 SCC 705 10 view of the proviso to Section 376(2)(g) which for adequate and special reasons permits imposition of a lesser sentence…...” 14. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh (supra) and taking into consideration the fact that the parties have themselves entered into compromise, the victim/complainant and the appellant are now living peacefully for betterment of their relationship as husband and wife and also for betterment of their children and also considering the fact that the appellant is facing lis since 2007, i.e., about 18 years and he has already remained in jail for more than 05 months, the conviction of the appellant is maintained, but the jail sentence awarded to the appellant for offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine amount and its stipulation imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above. 16. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of BNSS, 11 2023. 17. 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 pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE
Arguments
Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey (Judgment on Board) 2 04.09.2025 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 29.11.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, Sessions Division Dhamtari (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 09/2006, wherein the said Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :- Conviction Sentence Under Section 307 of the R.I. for 03 years with fine of IPC Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 02 months. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant Lakhan used to suspect the fidelity of his wife Sangeeta. In the intervening night of 11 and 12.04.05, at about 9-10 pm, Sangeeta was sleeping on a cot in the inner room with her children, she could not sleep and the appellant was roaming in the room and courtyard after having dinner. Sangeeta told him several times to go and sleep, but the appellant did not say anything, due to which Sangeeta got scared that the appellant might beat her because two-three years ago he 3 had beaten her on the head with a piece of iron. Thereafter, at about 2.00 am, she woke up the children, came and sat in the front room, then the appellant brought a sharp iron sickle from the inner room and assaulted on the neck of his wife Sangeeta with intent to kill her. He gave repeated blow on her neck, due to which she became unconscious. Thereafter, the elder son Sanjay came to the door of his elder father PW1 - Balram's house and screamed loudly that appellant killed his mother, save her. Then Balram, Ganeshi Bai got up and went there and saw that the door of appellant’s room was open, where the light was on. Huge amount of blood was spilled on the floor and injured Sangeeta was lying unconscious on the mat in pool of blood. She had sustained injuries on her neck and back. The appellant was standing with a sharp iron sickle with a wooden handle in his hand, which was stained with blood. Baliram asked him what he had done, then appellant Lakhan said that his wife Sangeeta's character was not good and that is why he hit her on the neck and back with the sickle to kill her, due to which she was unconscious. On hearing the sound, his uncle PW15 - Tijuram, Baliram's wife PW-4 - Ganeshi Bai, neighbour PW-5 Santosh, PW-10 Madan came 4 there. Injured Sangeeta was taken to Dhamtari Christian Hospital in a rickshaw and Baliram went to the Dhamtari Police Station and lodged a report on which FIR (Ex.P-1) being Crime No. 188/05 for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC was registered against the appellant. During the investigation, injured Sangeeta was admitted to Dhamtari Christian Hospital, Dhamtari where she was treated by Dr. Gourav (PW-18) who gave his report under Ex.P-20 noticing as many as 18 injuries, out of which 15 were incised wounds, 02 lacerated and one linear on her body. Spot map was prepared and blood stained mat, stone, bakkal etc wre seized from the spot. On the basis of memorandum statement of appellant, weapon of offence sickle was seized. Statements of all the witnesses were recorded and the bloodstained articles were sent for its chemical examination and report of FSL was also obtained. 3. After completion of due and necessary investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari, thereafter the matter was committed to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, Sessions Division Dhamtari (C.G.) and after registration of the Sessions Trial No. 09/2006, the 5 appellant was put to trial for the offences punishable under Section 307 of IPC. 4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellant examined as many as 20 witnesses, Baliram (PW-1), brother of appellant, Durga Sonkar (PW-2), nephew of appellant, Dukalabai (Pw-3), Ganeshi Bai (PW-4), sister-in-law, Santosh (PW-5), Devki Bai (PW-6), Kamlesh Sonkar (PW- 7), brother-in-law of the appellant, C. C. Jaikumar (PW-8), Dr. D.S. Deo (PW-9), Dhimar (PW-10), S.P. Singh (PW-11), Sub Inspector, Arvind Kumar Netam (PW-12), Constable, Smt. Sangeeta (PW-13), injured and wife of appellant, Sanjay Kumar (PW-14), son of appellant, Tijuram (PW-15), Shanti Bai (PW-16), mother-in-law of the appellant, Vasudeo Bhoi (PW-17) – Patwari, Dr. Gourav (PW-18), Chandrakant Tiwari (PW-19) and Anuj Gupta (PW-20). The appellant did not examined any witness in his defence. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case and pleaded hi innocence and false implication in this case. 5. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the 6 respective parties and considered the material available on record has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment. Hence, this present appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant and his wife complainant Sangeeta (PW-13) have filed an application I.A. No.01/2025 on 01.09.2025 for compounding the offence, inter-alia stating that the incident took place on 12.04.2005 and due to misunderstanding further complication was taken place and during the pendency of trial and the instant appeal, an compromise was taken placed between them and there is no enmity, grievance, doubts, rivalry or misunderstanding exist in between them and they are peacefully living together with their children. It has also been stated in the application that the complainant has already forgiven the appellant for betterment of their relationship as husband and wife and also for betterment of their children and the complainant has taken compromise without any fear, coercion or enticement. There is no malafide or bad intention and the step of compromise is taken place for welfare of each other and family. The complainant now wants to compromise with the appellant in 7 this appeal. So this application may be allowed and the impugned judgment and conviction may be set aside. In alternate, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident had taken place in the year 2005, the appellant is aged more than 60 years, the complainant and appellant are now living peacefully with their children, during pendency of of this appeal, the appellant remained in jail for more than 05 months, so his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Baldev Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2011)13 SCC 705 and upon the judgment of