HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Cr.ADpealNoAtof1991 APPELLANTS RESPONDENT Hiraman Son of Patthal Ram Gond, aged about 38 years, resident of Shw Prasad Nagar, P. S. Jhilmili, District Surguja. Versus TheStateofM.P. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374(21 OF CR.P.C. Present: Appellant-Hiraman is present in person. Shri A. K. Prasad, counsel for the appeltant. Shri G. D. Vaswani, Government Advocate for the Sfate. aash.. "^ ':;'^'tli^l?^ v^'^::.i' ORALJUDGMENT (Delivered on this 17ttl day of March, 2009) Appetlant-Hiraman has been convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. vkle judgment dated 14-12-1990 delivered in Sessions Trial No.153/86 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur, Camp-Surajpur, District Surguja and sentenced to undergo R.l. for three years. 2. The appellant was charged under Section 302 of the I.P.C. for committing murder of his wife Sahodri Bai in the aftemoon of 15-01-1986 at Village Shiv Prasad Nagar, P.S. Jhilmili. Postmortem conducted by Dr.A. K. Jain, P.W.4 revealed that there was no external injury on the scalp or neck of Sahodri Bai, Mo^ever internal examination revealed that there was extravasation of blood size 4" x r'.Jnthe left occipito parietat region and swelling in the left lobe in posterior aspect. On appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Judge held that the offence committed by the appellant did not travel beyondSection 304 Part -II of the t.P.C. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part -II of the I.P.C. and sentenced to rigoroys jmprisonment only for three yeare. ,— ^. 3. Shri A. K. Prasad, learned counset for the appellant submitted at the very outset that he would not assail the conviction of the appeltant under Section 304 Part-11 ofttie I.P.C. on merit but would argue this appeal only on the question of sentence awarded by the learned trial Judge. 4. In view of the submission made by leamed counsel for the appellant, the appeal was heard finally only on the question of sentence. 5. Shri A.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appeltant is facing the agony of the trial since 1986 and has already undergone imprisonment for 334 days. Reliance was placed on K. Ramakrishnan Unnlthan versus State of Kerala, 1999-AIR-S.C.-1428. Leamed counsel for the appellant prayed that the sentence awarded by ttie learned trial Judge should be modified to the sentence already undergone by the appellant. 5. On the other hand, Shri G. D. Vaswani, learned Government Advocate for the State has argued that the sentence awarded by the learned trial Judge is adequate to the nature of offence and no teniency deserves to be shown to the appellant on the ground urged by the leamed counsel for the appellant. 6. Having considered rival submisslons, 1 have perused the record. 1 am of the considered opinion that the teamed trial Judge has atready awarded sentence in a very tenient manner to the appellant. No ground for reduction ofsentence awarded under Section 304 Part II ofthe t.P.C. is made out. 7. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. The appellant be taken into custody and sent to jail. Sdl- . ~' , D";?.^'b judge Tuirane