@Qr ginggm gemgiE IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAspsUR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. l9$7—/2008 ($3.) APPELLANTs / Lln Jain 1. Smt. Gayatri Bai W/o. Rajeéh Jogi, (Satnami) aged about : 2'2 years, R/o. Sant Ravidas Ward, Present Address ': Mahasati Ward, Bhatapara, Police Station Bhatapara (City), District Raipur (C.G.). Smt. Hare‘iiya Bai W/o. Surju Ram Gendre, (Satnami) aged about : 45 ye‘ars, R/o. Mahasati Ward, Bhatapara, Poiice Station Bhatapara (City), District Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Thr‘ough Police Station : Bhatapara, (City) District : Raipur (C.G.). RESPONDENT, A MEM /, NDU OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 2 RIMINAL PROCEDURE CQDE‘ 1&73 OF Q HIGH COURT'OF CHHATTISEARH AT BILASPUR Single Beach Hon hie Mr Juglce Prmnker Dmaxer‘ ’ (trimaran! Appeai No 1037 ef 200$ APPELLANTS Smf. &aycm"i Bai & one anofher'. . Versus RESPONDENT r 5mm of Chhcm‘isgcxrh Shri H5. Ahiuwaiia, counsei fer The appeiicm‘rs. Shm NeemJ Meh’ra PL for The 3+afe/r'gsp0nden‘r CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTTf‘JN 3?”4 {2) GF THE CCDE OF CRIMINAL ?ROCEDUR: JU35EMENT ’ ( 04.02.2011} m: To undergo ymenf OT fme fa furfher undergo , rj‘igdndusvrmpnsonmen‘hm‘ ‘ms. ’ A 2:39 grief frie‘l's efsr‘fhe e‘-“fnaf 'o'n 2610 2007 deceased mice 9v sef‘hng «abiaze m her' a-house where she was resldi' 726 10 2007 . After car'r‘ymg merg mveshgahon was reglsfer'ed on 712 2007 under Section 306/34 OT fne Indian Penai Cede agams’r the accusediappeilanfs Apnellam No 1 - Sm? Gqymrl , Bai Is slsfer-In law (Dex/mm} OT The deceased whereas appellant N0. 2- SmT. Harei§ya 8m ts mofner of appellant No. 1A .This appea! is direcmd againsf fhe impugnec§ judgmem and order. da‘?ed 21.11.2008 passed by Addif§ona1 Sessicns Judge Bhampam Di‘s??ic+ Raipur ‘in Sessions Tr-sal No' . GZ/ZOO8 conVicTmg The accused/angenanfs under Sechcn . ‘ ‘ 1306/34 of 1he lndmn Penai Code and sen‘renvmg each m‘ Them 123.500 m d fuui‘r s imprisonment rm" Y years and my fme sf um'cn e“ P V’Smf Kun‘h Ba! commrHed char: Pafei *(P ‘ ‘ W. u o. a / s Q8 I? is aiieged ’rha? appeilan’r N0. 1 Sm‘t. Gaym‘ri Bai used f9 suspect fhe character m‘ fhe deceased saying fhaf deceased was having iiiicii’ relm‘ion wi‘ih her husband, as a result of which They used 'i'a quarrel and on ’rhe dafe of inciden‘i fhe deceased was bea’ren by fhe accused/appeiianis, Gui of anger deceased wem‘ inside her room and se‘r henseif ablaze. Afien, ‘ inves‘iigafion dial/an was fiied ion 30:12.2007 under Seciion 7 ' 306/34 of The Indian Penal Code. 3. So as To hoid ‘rhe accused/appeiianie guii’ry, prosecution has examined as many as 20 wifnesses. Sfafemen’rs of fhe accused/appeiianfs were also recorded under Section 313 of ‘ihe Code of Criminal Procedure in which ihey-denied' The charges leveled agains‘i Them and pleaded fheir innocence and false implicaiion in The case. Aparf'from fhis, wifness namely Rajesh Kumar Jogi (DW—l) has also been examined by lhe defence in suppor‘i of ifs case. 4. Affer hearing The parfies ‘rhe friai Cour? has convicfed and senfenced The accusedfappeilanfs for The offence as meni'ioned above. Hence fhis appeal. 5. Counsel for ,i’he appe’iianfs submi’rs fhaf he is no? pressing This appeal as far as'iT relafes To'convicTion parT of Theimpu§ned judgmenT and would confine his argumem‘ To The senTence parT Thereof only Accordmq To him oppelianf No 1 is a young woman aged abouT 22 years navmg small child whereas ' appellanT No 2 is aged abouT 45 vears and boTh of Them are In Jail Since 8 12 2007 i e abouT more Than Three vears no useful purpose would be served in furTher keeping Them m Jail and 1T > would be in The inTeresT of jusTice if The senTence imposed on @ ‘rhem is reduced To fhe periad aiready under-gone by fhem. Ta fhis, counsel for fhe Sfm‘e has serious obJecfion. 6. In View 0f above, #he appeai is pam‘iy ailowed. CoHvicTion par‘f of The impugned judgmenf is mainfnined. Appeiian’r No. 1 is a young'woman, aged abou‘r 22 years,having small chiid whereas appeiian‘i No. 2 is aged abou’r 45 year's and boih of fhem are in jaii since 8.12.200] Le abou‘r more fhan fhr'ee year's and The inciden'f Took place abouT four years back and, fherefore fheir sen‘iences are reduced ‘l’o ihe period already undergone by them. They be immedia‘rely se‘r free if no? required in any ofher case. Sdl- Pritinker Diwaker Judge 7. Appeal thus parily succeeds lg;