Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 (CRA No. 1536 of 2023) ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.04.05 12:34:02 +0530 2025:CGHC:15321 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1536 of 2023 {Arising out of judgment dated 19.07.2023 passed in Sessions Trial No.24/2022 by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, Korba} 1 - Rajendra Prasad Gupta S/o Late Chhathu Sah, Aged About 33 Years At Present R/o Rented House Of Bhandari, Jyoti Nagar, Deepka, Police Station Deepka, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. Permanent R/o Village Lalapur Kudara, Police Station Kudara, District Kaimur, Bhabhuva (Bihar), At Present R/o Jyoti Nagar, Deepka, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Of Police Station Deepka, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant For State
Legal Reasoning
:- Ms. Aditya Khare, Advocate :- Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. (01.04.2025) 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC preferred by the appellant-accused is directed against the 2 (CRA No. 1536 of 2023) impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.07.2023 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.24/2022, by which the sole appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 304(Part-II) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07 years and to pay fine of ₹ 2,000/- , in default of payment of fine, sentenced to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 06 months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 23.02.2022, at about 10:00 pm, in the rented house of one Bhandari Sahu at Jyotinagar, Police Station Deepka, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, the appellant strangulated his wife - Sunita Gupta, by which she died and, thereby, said to have committed the aforesaid offence. 3. It is the further case of the prosecution that Rakesh Gupta (PW-01), brother of the deceased, reported the matter to the police, pursuant to which merg intimation and FIR were registered vide Ex.P/1 & Ex.P/2 respectively. Spot Map and Nazari naksha were prepared vide Ex.P/4 & Ex.P/6 respectively. Inquest proceedings (Ex.P/9) were conducted and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. As per postmortem report (Ex.P/3), proved by 3 (CRA No. 1536 of 2023) Dr. Kamlesh Porte (PW-07), the cause of death was cardio- respiratory arrest due to throttling and its complications and nature of death is homicidal. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded and, after due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences in the competent criminal Court having jurisdiction, which was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which, the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents, whereas the defence in support of its case has examined 03 witnesses but has not exhibited any document. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant/accused for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein 4 (CRA No. 1536 of 2023) questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 6. Mr. Aditya Khare, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offence, as the prosecution has failed to prove the same beyond the reasonable doubt. Since, eye-witnesses, Ku. Riya Kumari (PW-02) and Ku. Neeru Gupta (PW-04) are the daughters of the appellant and the deceased, therefore, they being the interested witness are not reliable, therefore, the appellant could not have been convicted by the trial Court for the said offence on that basis and this appeal deserves to be allowed. However, in alternative he submits that the sentence awarded by the trial Court is on the higher side and therefore, it may be reduced to the sentence already undergone by the appellant. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed in full or in part. 7. Per-contra, Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature and it is not a case where the sentence of the appellant can be reduced to the sentence already 5 (CRA No. 1536 of 2023) undergone by him. As such, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. Now, the question is, whether the trial court is justified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 304(Part-II) of the IPC ? 10. In the case at hand, the trial Court has found that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death of his wife Sunita Gupta (deceased), but due to some domestic dispute, he is said to have assaulted his wife and strangulated her, because of which she died. As such, the appellant, who had no intention but knowledge that the strangulation is likely to cause death, has committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder and, thereby, proceeded to convict the appellant under Section 304(Part II) and imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Accordingly, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the said finding of the trial Court in view of the statements of eye-witnesses Ku. Riya Kumari (PW-02) and Ku. Neeru Gupta (PW-04), who 6 (CRA No. 1536 of 2023) are the daughters of the appellant and the deceased and were present at home (place of incident) on the date and time of the offence and have witnessed the incident. As such, the finding of the trial Court in convicting the appellant under Section 304 (Part-II) is hereby affirmed, being well merited. 11. Now, the argument which needs consideration is that the sentence of 07 years rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellant by the trial Court is on the higher side and therefore, it may be reduced to the sentence already undergone by the appellant, as the appellant is in jail since 24.02.2022. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering that the deceased was unwell for a very long time and the appellant was also getting her treated continuously and that before the incident the appellant had made the deceased to eat dinner and also considering the nature of the dispute that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death of his wife Sunita Gupta (deceased), it would be appropriate to convert the sentence of 07 years of rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellant to 05 years rigorous imprisonment. However, the fine sentence 7 (CRA No. 1536 of 2023) and default stipulation as imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain intact. 12. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above. 13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned and to the Superintendent of Jail where he is lodged and suffering jail sentence, forthwith for necessary information and action, if any. @d!t! Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge