,--»• Aiy»eUants (inJs t( •**^Ky m THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR CiEOMINALAPPieAL N0. 5-t-i ^ OF 2007 :1) Kalaram, S/0. Shiv Prasad Satnami, aged about 27 years,' occupcttion „. 1111 f"" , ^y- AgricultuFC^ R/o. Vfflage Pachpedi, P.S. 1<"1 . _ . . iarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) . ^2)yrem Lal, S/o. Shiv Prasgcl Satnami, iged about 28^years, oceupation ^.^gnculture, R/o. Village Pachpedi, P.S. Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) Bhajan Bai, W7o. Shiw Prasa(i'"Satnami, ^\t^*'aged ab&ut 50 ^ears, occupation Agriculturer-R/o. ViUage Pacfipedi, P.S. Saraiigarh, DistricfRaigarh (C.G.) VERSUS < State of Chhattisgarh Acting tfarougih Qfficer-in-charge Police StatiQii Sarangarfi, District Raigarh (G.G.) eRnmN^ACTEALglBNEER^SBCiaOK 37^1 OFTHECOI^CfmfmSWStM^VRSSfSEasaSM '» HSOH COUST OF CHHATTISQARH AT BILA8PIIR [0.246^2007 versus Kaiai~am'&. Ofhers State of Cbhatisgai-b. Shri YogeshwarSbarma, coyiisel for tb.e appeUants. Shri Vivete Sharaaa, P.L. .fortfae State. APPBAL UWDERSBCTIQN 37412S OI<* TH.E.CR.P.C. 'T'he present appeal is directed agauist fhe judgiaent &, order dated 19.3,07 passed by ttte Additional Sessions Judge, Saraagarii, district Raigarh in S.T. No. 98/2005 coavictiiig tlie accused/appeUaats for l.l'Le offence puiiishable underSeotions 498-A, 307/34 of the IPC and seatenciQg ttem to uadergo RI fer three years with fine ofRs. 5000 eaeh, to undergo Rl fer ten ycars wifh. fiae ofRs. 10,000 eacli, in default offeie to further undergo RI for one year. 2. Brief facts of tlie case are that. is.ai'riage of tfae compI;i£riaHt (siace deceased) Sushila Bai was soleinnized witii the accused/appellaat No.l about two years priot t.o the date ofiiicMeai; i.e. oa 4.6.05, Accused7a.ppeIiantNo.2 is tbe brother-in-lawwhereas appellaij.t N0.3 is fhe x&other ia law offhe coaiplamant, !t is aUeged that ou 4.6.05, tlie aonellants ooiu'ed keroseae oil and set her oa firel- as a result of wtLicli she sustamed 50-55% bum injuries, After| investigatiou FIR Ex.P/14 was regisEered agaicst the\ acciised/appeUante ixad.er Section 498-A & 307/34 of fhe IPC aiiifl 1 *•• - . . . „ .. : _ ..- '! chall;aa v>-as flled on 12.8.05 ia relation to tlae ofteace iiader SectiQns'i 498-A & 307/34 offheIPC. However, complaiaaat Sushila Bai died on 8.1.06 and therefore sutosequenfly, supplementa.iy clialiari wa^ fcled on 2.3.06 imderSections 4Q8-A&304-Bofthe ]PC. ; i 1 !i i 1 i:'-isa, 3. So as to liold the accused/appeIla.Dts guii'ty, the prosecunon has exam.ined 22 witaesses. Stateinent of fhe accused/appellauts were also record.ed under Section 313 of the Code of Criiaiii.al Procedure in which fhey denied fhe charges leveUed against tbeia and pleaded fheir innoc'ence and false iinplication in the case. 4. After heaiiag couasel for the paities, fb.e trial Court has acquitted the accused/appe'Uants oftbe charge under Section 302 of the Indisji Penal Code tout has convicted tbein under Sectioiis 498-A &. 307/34 ofthe IPC aadsentenced them. as inentioned above. Hence 'feis appeal. 5. Coateiition of Sliri Sharma, counsel for the appellants is that he is not pressing tbis appeal so far as it relates to conviction part of the judgm.e.nt iinpugned aad would confcie his ai^uiaent to ftie sentence part of fhe saiae only. He subinits fha.t the appeUs-nts are in jail since 7.6.05 i.e. 5 years & 9 m.onths, appellant No.3 is an old lady aged about 54 vears and frierefore their sentence be redijced to the period ab-eady undergone by^fliem.. 6. The sutoiuission as inade by fhe coun.sel for fb.e appeUant is seriously opposed oy the State coiuisel. 7. Considering fhe facts aad circumstarices of th.e case, tbe coaviction part of fhe iiapugned judgiaent is aiEiintam.ed. However, looking to ttie fa.et that the appellaiits are ia jail since 5 years & 9 inontas, their sentence is i^duced to six vears frora fhat of ten years. However, the liae aiaouat as iiaposed'by the trial Court wiil reinain as ir is. i- Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge