IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Aoneal No. .°.:;.^...../2008 t-flt' -....•t*!'^ .^'S-'S'^&.K&^ ;gB»' APPELLANT (In Jail) ^?."^ ^^^& RESPONDENT Ranjeet Kumar Dongre S/o Babu Rao Dongre Aged about 25 years, R/o House No.86, Panchshil Bidi Colony, Bilaspur P.S. Civil line, Bilaspur, District BUaspiir (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through : Station House Officer, PoUce Station : Dongargarh, District: RajnandgaonfC.G.) -^" CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF THE CODE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 HIGH COURT OF CHHAmScaASH ATBILASPBR -X ^ i99. 'R versus ?aDjeet.KUm.ar Doagi^ State of CMiaftisgarh Shri C.R.Sahu. counsel for the appeUants. ShriVaibIiav Goveidhaii, P.L. forfh.e State. ..^gS&L UHDERSECTIQEL374{2|.OFTHB_CR.P.C, .. Ite'^eseirii^peal^an.ses/o'y't pf;th'::.jurfgnieat^and -orderldated 23.6.2008;;ga;sse<i^^by tlw^Sessions.Judge^Saj'ri^uiagaon^m^ Triai NQ.IjS^SPO? 'coE^faa,^lbfi^acousei3.ya.p])eUa.hl'fer fhe iMfea.ce punishabfe .^uader Seetioa 307 ,of fhe-.I.H^'aiid seatencihg hisl to "iindergo Sl Jor:'tefi'vears.Mi't'a fcie or Rs. 1,000 iii default ofilne'Eo furtIier''aQdetgo,'S'I/fciE'Wfi-iaoat.h:s....:.'.: - • /: V i^t-.t.. :• •" : 2. ' BrieK'f§fcfs%'E•j3;te'-cgse;are::1;hat on -20.09.2006 at about 13.45 : hrs. deha?r^nafi§te'.i(Ex.P/4).was./;recorded on fee basis of tlie aUegati.on made by Rakhi Bai (P.W.-3) tvife ofthe acCTised/appeUaat that her.:mainage was- solemiuzed.tnth'the accused/appeUaB.t about a vear'ba'eS'.Itis furtb.er aBeged, fhat whea she was m ttie house of :.. her'tiarents at.Dongergarh, on 1.9.09.06 her husbaad came to her parents;li6use,.stayed at aight aad on fbe next day i.e. on 20.09.06 he asKed •hls wtfe Rakhi-Bai to come aloagwitli him as he had left bis ,purse at'the Bidi quarterw'hereupOB. she went along wi-tii bun aQd 011 . reaching fttere; he took her iuside, bolted the room aiid tried to press . ; her neck, 'when she resisted, he gagged her mouth aad poured oil on tier body then she ran toward.s the door; he agaui gagged her mouth aud assaulted with kaife OB lier neck and right leg, thereafter he rook a Ughter fi-om his paat and set her on fire however she shoiited for help aad on hearmg fhe cries, the neighbours canie aiid rescued. S'he has ftirtb.er aUeged that. she was beiD.g subjected to harassiueEt for deruand of downr. Based on tJie above deha.li nalishi. F'lR (Ex.P/4A> was registered on ftie sanie day- i.e. 20.09.06 under Sections. 307, 498-A & 149 of fh.e 1PC. After invesfigation, cballaD. was fi!ed on 20.11.06 under Section 307, 498 A, 109 fi& 34 ofthe IPC against tbe. accused/appeuaiit, his father aiid inother. 3. In support ofits case, fiie prosecution has exainined as m.aay •^, as 13 witaesses. Statenient of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of fhe Code of Crimiaal Procedure in which they denied fhe charges leveled agam.st thein and pleaded ttieir ianocence aad false ioiplication in fhe case. 4. A-fter hearing counsel for the parties, ffae tdal Court has acquitted all the accused persons ofthe c'hai^e uiider Section 498-A but has convicted accused/appeUant und.er Section 307/34 of th.e IPC and sentenced him. as luentioned above. Hence this appeal. •^.-.-' 5. Confeution of Shri Sab.u, counsel for the apoeUant is fh.at he is not pressiug fhis appeal so far as it relates to conviction part of tiie judgment impugned and would confine his ai^ument to fhe senteiice part of TIie saine oaly. He submits fhat fhe injuiy siistaiaed by the victica was smiple in. nature and the appeUaat has merely suffered sunple superficial biim injuries. He submits that the appeltaut is still wiUuie to keep his wife and tliere is everv likelibood fhat the matter would be setfled amicably. He submits that ttie appellaiit is ia jail siace 5.10.2006 aad therefore the jail. sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by him.. He further submits tliat the sentence offine inay be enhanced so tbat the victiin is coiapensated. 6. On the other h.and, coiuisel for the State submits that manner in which the appeBaiit bas bui-nt his wife, no leiuency can shown to him.. 7. Considering the facts and circuin.staaces of the case, iri particular looking to fhe fact fhat the victim had suffered siiaple superilcialbum injuiy, the appeUant is readv to keep his wite, this Court isoffte view thatitwouM'be ia flie uiterest ofjustice ifthejail sentence impoSed on the accused/appeliaiit is reduced to the period already undergpnfi by him ^ubjeet to enliancem.ent of sentence of fine. •' • .. '. , ' •; -. .. ^ / : : • :' 1,:'.: ^:7 8. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed, Jail senteufce imposed ^ on fhe accuspd/appellant is faereby reduced. However, tlle?sentence of fuie imposedi l)y fhe Cdurt jbelow is enhanoed to Rs. ^QQO cjut of ^l wfaich Ks. 5000 sfaaU be dtsbursed to fhe victun (wife of tbe appeQasQ. TIus oFder shalt 'becoine pperational oBly affeT fhe appeUaiit depasits fhfi entire aiaozmt ^ before the, GQurt'below. AppealfUus partly sueceeds. ^ Sd/- Pritinker;Diwaker Judge J' ^ '^w^ [iiuiii