1 2025:CGHC:35381 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 666 of 2005 1 - Dular Singh, S/o Santram Diwan, aged about 21 years, 2 – Santram, S/o Shyam Singh Diwan, aged about 45 years, 3 – Mehtarin Bai, W/o Santram Diwan, aged about 40 years, 4 – Genduram, S/o Chandel Singh Diwan, aged about 23 years, 5 – Rukhmani Bai, W/o Genduram Diwan, aged about 20 years, All R/o Village Nawagaon, P.S. Baghbahara, District Mahasamund (CG) ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, District Mahasamund (CG) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Shri Suraj Jaiswal & Shri Navin Shukla on behalf of Shri Shamsuddin Mirza, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Miss Anuradha Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Judgment on Board 23/07/2025 : 1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 08.08.2005 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in ST No.378/2004 whereby the appellants have been convicted for KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2025.07.23 17:10:16 +0530 2 commission of offence under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months each and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month each. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.6.2004, the appellant No.2 namely, Santram has lodged a merg intimation (Ex.-P/3) in the Police Station Bagbahara stating that his daughter-in-law Dhaneshwari was living with them after the marriage. She was married for the last two years and she was issueless. On the date of the incident i.e. 27.06.2004 at about 9 pm when he returned to his house after attending a social meeting, his daughter-in-law offered meal to him and thereafter he went to sleep. His daughter-in-law also went to her room for taking sleep. At about 12.30 in the night, when he woke up to attend the nature’s call, he saw that the door of his son’s room was opened. He called his son and daughter-in-law and thereafter his son Dular Singh came and said that Dhaneshwari Bai is not in the room. When they checked the other rooms, they found that one room was locked form inside. When they gave a call to open the door, nobody opened the door whereupon both the appellants (Appellants No.1 & 2) climbed on the roof and saw that Dhaneshwari Bai has committed suicide by hanging with the help of her sari. Father of the deceased lodged a report with the concerned police station alleging that the appellants have demanded dowry of Rs.10,000/- and on account of non-fulfillment of the said demand, they have committed her murder. Dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Hemant Chandrawamnshi (PW-10), who vide his report (Ex.-P/5) has opined that 3 the mode of death is Asphyxia caused by hanging and the nature of death is suicidal. 3. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.-P/2. Crime details form was prepared vide Ex.-P/3. The FIR was registered vide Ex.-P/7. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal Court, which in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. 4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents. In the statements recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, the appellants have stated that they have been falsely implicated however, they adduced two witnesses in their defence namely, Smt. Kaushilya Bai (DW-1) and Smt. Rukmani (DW-2). 5. The trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above, however, acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 306/34 of the IPC. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the judgment of the trial Court is bad in law as well as on facts. He submits that he is not challenging the impugned judgment on merits. The trial Court has awarded the sentence of RI for 6 months and fine of Rs.200/- to each of the appellants. Considering the age of the appellants and the fact that they are facing criminal trial since 2005, learned counsel only emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably as the appellant No.1 Dular Singh has already suffered imprisonment for more than 11 months 4 whereas the other appellants have been in jail for some time. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by them may be suffice to meet the ends of justice. 7. Per contra, learned State Counsel would support the impugned judgment. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the appellants for offence under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for 6 months and fine of Rs.200/-. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the trial Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting the appellants for offence under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC. 10. As regards the question of sentence, it is noted that the appellants are facing criminal trial since 2005 and thereafter about 20 years have elapsed. Considering that the appellant No.1 Dular Singh has already suffered imprisonment for more than 11 months i.e. from 23.8.2004 to 8.8.2005; appellant No.2 Santram remained in jail for about 2 months i.e. from 23.8.2004 to 11.10.2004; appellant No.3 Mehtarin Bai remained in jail for about 2 months i.e. from 23.8.2004 to 11.10.2004; appellant No.4 Genduram remained in jail for about 2 months i.e. from 23.8.2004 to 11.10.2004 & appellant No.5 remained in jail for about 2 5 months i.e. from 23.8.2004 to 12.10.2004 and from the date of judgment i.e. 8.8.2005 till 24.8.2005 when they were directed to be released on bail by this Court, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in again sending them to jail and the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 11. For the foregoing, conviction imposed on the appellants under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC is maintained and the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 12. The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein- above. 13. Let a copy of this judgment with original records be sent to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Barve