?..- 4 ^/lilip^' :(?s^s^ '^^" 0. '^y-T- • - ki" ^ SingleBench IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) CRIMINAL APPEAL N0. ^^ /2008 Appellant I^ 3^\) ^^^. •^^ VERSUS Respondent Ramadhar, S/o Shri Nemchand, Aged about 52 years, R/o Gram Dharsiwa, Tarpongi, P.S. Dharsiwa, Dist. Raipur (C.G.). State ofChhattisgarh, Through P.S. Dharsiwa, Dist. Raipur (C.G.). CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37^(2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE \-- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench:: Hon'ble Mr. J'ystice :PrJtinkw:IE>Nyak®r Crimmal Aoow{ No. 706 of 2008 APPELLANT anjail) RESPONDENT RcBinadhar,s/o Shri Nemchand Versus State of^jChhattisgarh Shri C.R. Sahu, counsel for the appellont: Shri Vivek Shorma, PL for the State/respondent. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 02} OF TH6 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JU D6MENT i (07.01.2011) This appeal js directed agdnst the impugrtisd judgment <andcopder1 dated 23.7.2008 passed by 10th Additionol Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur in Sessions Triai No. 342/2007 convicting the accused/appellant for the offences punishable under Sectioris 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penai Code cnd sentencing him to undepgo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to furl'her undergo rigof'ous impnsonmeht for 6 ^onths u/S 306 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year- with firte of Rs.500/-, in default of pGEymentof finetofurtheirundergo rigorous Jmprisonment for three mpnths u/S 498-A IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run poncurrently. 2. Brief facts of thecase dre that ori 29.9.2007 decedsed Mahjsha Verma (doiughter-in-law of the accused/appellont) committed suicide dong with her 7 months old daughter by pouring kerosene ojl on them. Entries in the Rojnamcha Sanha were made ond based on that merg intimation (Ex.P-4) was registered on 29.9.2007 itself. On 4.10.2007 a written reporl- •^."-..•^^ (Ex.P-1) was mo.de by RJkhi Ram Verma (PW-1)- matemal grandfatherof the deceased oljeging in it that marriage of deceased Manisha Verma was solemnized with Shiv Kumar, son of the accused/appellant about two years back but her son-in- law had expired. It is dieged that accused/oppellantused to have physical reiation with deceased Manisha and accused/appellant had also sold the property of her husband. On 4.10.2007 jtself F.I.R. (Ex.P-15) was registered against the accused/appelJQnt under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code cind after investigotion challan was filed on 13.11.2007. 3. So os to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 21 witnesses jn support' of its cose. Statement of the occused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of CriminQl Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implieation in the case. Apart- from this, witnesses nomely Santosh Verma (DW-1) ond Smt. Yashoda Bai (DW-2) have also been examined by the defence in support- of its case. 4. After hearing the parl'ies the trial Court hds convicted and sentenced the accused/appellont as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material availabje on record including thejudgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appeljant submits that he isnot pressing this appeal so far as it relcri'es to conviction part' of the impugned judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part- thereof only. He submits that the appellont is in jail since 13.10.2007 i-e about three yeQrs ond three months ^^^.^ [^. ^^^ '^'^" g^''; and is not keeping good health in jail. He submits that the accused/appellant is the sole eaming member of his fomily and as he had lost his son, a liberal view may be taken while awopding sentence to him. He furt-her submits that the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period olready undergone by him. He submits that fine amount may be enhanced. To this, counsel for the State has no serious objection. 7. Having thus considered the fact that as the judgment impugned concerning conviction of the appellant is left unchallenged dt this stage, the same is hereby maintained. However, keeping in view the foict that the appellant \s in jail since 13.10.2007 i.e. about three yecrs and three months, had lost his son, this Couri- is of the considered opinion that it would be in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence imposed on the appellant to the period already undergone, by enhancing fine amount. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is poirtly allowed. Conviction parl- of the impugned judgment is maintained but the sentence imposed on the accused/appeilant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, in lieu thereof, fine of Rs. 1000 imposed by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- (under Section 306 IPC) and fine oimount of Rs.500/- is enhanced to Rs.5000/- (under Section 498-A IPC). Appellant is directed to deposit this enhanced amount within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On depositing the enhanced fine amount, the appellant be set free if not required in any other case. Pritinker Diwaker Judge