1 2025:CGHC:12140 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 90 of 2007 1 – Smt. Ajwantin Bai, wife of Shri Ganiram Sahu, aged about 38 years, Resident of village Bawli, Police Station Pathariya, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station Pathariya, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For the appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For the State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 11/03/2025 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.01.2007 passed in S.T.No. 242 of 2006 by the II Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Mungeli, District Bilaspur whereby the A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2 learned trial Court while acquitting the appellant under Section 304-B IPC has convicted and sentenced her as under: U/s 498-A IPC : RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 3 months By the said judgment dated 10.01.2007, the learned trial Court has acquitted the co-accused Jaiprakash under sections 304-B & 306 IPC and further acquitted other co-accused Ganiram & Rajesh Kumar under section 304-B on the ground that the offences are not proved against them beyond reasonable doubt. 2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.09.2005,at about 5.00 am, Santoshi Bai wife of Jai Prakash got up and went out to wash utensils. Thereafter she went inside the room , closed the door and set herself on fire, due to which, she died. On the same day, accused Ganiram Sahu (father in law of deceased) gave merg intimation to Police Station Patharia, on which, the Investigating Officer L. Tigga has gone to the spot and opened the door in presence of witnesses and prepared Dehati Nalishi and spot map of incident. Thereafter IO seized one Kerosene oil Can, one match box and the ashes of half burn clothes. The dead body of deceased was subjected to postmortem and it was handed over to the husband on Supurdnama. During merg investigation, it was found that the deceased was treated with cruelty by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law for not bringing dowry articles like Motorcycle, cash etc., and further they were also suspecting the character of deceased, due to which, the deceased committed suicide on 23.09.2005 in the morning by pouring kerosene oil and burning herself. The seized kerosene oil can, burnt cloth and half burnt cloth were sent to the doctor for examination . The doctor advised to get the above items 3 chemically tested then these items were sent to FSL: raipur for chemical examination. After completing the investigation and on complying with other procedural requirements, the charge sheet was filed. 3. The prosecution has in all examined 11 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents to prove its case. The accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein they pleaded innocence and false implication. After conclusion of trial and considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court by impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He also submits that out of the maximum jail sentence of 1 year awarded to her u/s 498-A IPC, she had already remained in jail for about 2 months 13 days. He submits that the incident took place in September, 2005, since then the appellant is facing the lis and this appeal is pending since 2006 and now she is aged about more than 61 years. He further submits that there are no criminal antecedents reported against her. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence of the appellant under section 498-A IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by her in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 4 7. According to the statements of mother P.W.2 Pardeshnin Bai & P.W.3 Tijauram, when the deceased was visiting her maternal home, she told them that her mother-in-law suspected her of carrying away goods/things to her maternal home and further accused her of stealing money and on the basis of evidence of these witnesses, the trial Court has convicted the appellant u/s 498-A on the ground of cruelty. Having regard to the evidence of mother of deceased (P.W.2) which stood firm by the version of P.W.3 Tijauram and also considering the other attending circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for the offence u/s 498-A of IPC on the ground of cruelty and it is hereby affirmed. 9. Now coming to the sentence part of appellant, considering the facts that the incident had taken place in 2006 about 18 years ago and the maximum jail sentence awarded to her is RI for 1 year u/s 498-A IPC, out of which, as stated by learned counsel she had already remained in jail for about 2 months and 13 days and is facing the lis since 2006 and further looking to her present age as also considering the fact that no criminal antecedents are reported against her, in the interest of justice and in the considered opinion of this Court, instead of again sending her to jail, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence of the appellant from one year R.I. to the period already undergone by her i.e. 2 months and 13 days for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and to enhance the fine of Rs.1000/- as imposed by the trial Court to Rs.5000/-. If any fine amount deposited before the trial Court shall be adjusted in the enhanced amount which is hereby imposed by this Court. It is ordered accordingly. 5 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 11. Appellant is on bail. She need not again surrender in this case. However, her bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC. 12. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao