Lukeshwar @ Lukesh Sahu S/o Hiraman Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Choti v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.06.20 11:06:26 +0530 2025:CGHC:25315 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1469 of 2021 Lukeshwar @ Lukesh Sahu S/o Hiraman Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Choti Kareli, Police Station Magarload, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Village Thuha Navagaon, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant For Respondent/State
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate : Ms. Prabha Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 18/06/2025 1. The present appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.11.2021 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhamtari (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 47/2019 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as 2 under : Conviction Sentence U/s 498A of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 2 months. 2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant and deceased Amin Sahu were married in the year 2005. The deceased was working as a Shiksha Karmi. In the year 2019, the appellant requested deceased Amin Sahu to take loan from her department and also sell the land in Kurud to start a Service Center, which the deceased refused, due to which a dispute started between them. Thereafter, the appellant used to harass the deceased and abet her to commit suicide, as a result of which she committed suicide by consuming poison on 29.07.2019. The matter was reported to PS Kurud by Naresh Bharti, Ward Boy, Civil Hospital, Kurud, based on which FIR was registered and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. 3. So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, vide impugned judgment dated 09.11.2021, learned trial Court found that the case of abetment is not proved against the appellant 3 but it is a case of harassment and cruelty and therefore, convicted the appellant under Section 498A of IPC instead of Section 306 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the maximum sentence imposed on the appellant is 2 years and the appellant has already remained in custody for 26 days. The appellant and the deceased have two children from their marriage who are living with the appellant. The incident took place about 6 years ago, now if the appellant is sent back to jail, the future of the children will be affected. Hence, considering all theses facts, the sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. In support of his argument, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Venkateswaran v. State reported in (2025) SCC 578 wherein the sentence of two years imposed on the appellant has been reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of the deceased’s father Rikhiram Sahu (PW-1), mother Daya Bai (PW-6) and Dr. J. P. Diwan (PW- 10), the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question is clearly established. This Court does not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as 4 regards conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. 9. As regards sentence, in the case of M. Venkateswaran (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court, considering the facts that the couple lived together exactly for 3 days and that after the incident in question, victim wife married and settled abroad, the case prolonged for a period of nearly 19 years and the appellant remained in custody for approximately 3 months, has reduced the sentence of two years imposed on the appellant to the period already undergone by him. 10. In the present case, the appellant stands sentenced to 2 years RI out of which he has already remained in custody for 26 days. The appellant and the deceased lived as husband and wife for about 14 years and out of their wedlock two children were born who are now being brought up by the appellant. The incident took place about 6 years back and if the appellant is now sent back to jail, the future of the children will be affected. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid judgment, in the larger interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 11. Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 498A of IPC, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 26 days days. However, the fine imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court shall remain intact. 12. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall continue for a further period of six months from today in terms of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment 5 be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai