1 2025:CGHC:11546 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 911 of 2007 • Ramkumar @ Shambhu, S/o Shri Lalan Gond, aged about 37 years, Occupation Agriculturist and Driver, Resident of Village Budha, Bagicha, Police Station Rajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, through the Police Station Rajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. T.R. Chandrakar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. HAPS Bhatia, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 07.03.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of CrPC challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.09.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 454/2005, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.03.10 17:42:05 +0530 2 years. 2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that, Anupa Munda, a resident of village Budha Bagicha, lodged a report at Rajpur Police Station on 09/09/2005 at 9:00 AM, stating that on the night of 09/09/2005 at 2:00 AM, her husband Sunil was about to go to sleep at home when the accused, Ramkumar, along with another person, arrived at their house with a truck. They asked Sunil to accompany them to the truck, to which he agreed. However, upon reaching the truck, the accused forcibly pulled Sunil inside and drove away. When Sunil did not return throughout the night, Anupa went out searching for him. Following the tire marks of the truck, she reached near Shivbalak’s house, where she found Sunil’s dead body lying in the middle of the road. His head was injured, and there were drag marks on his face. Based on Anupa’s report, an investigation was initiated. It was found that just before his death, the deceased was last seen with the accused. A post-mortem examination revealed a puncture wound above Sunil’s ear, and his death was determined to be homicidal. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed U/s 302 IPC against the appellant. 3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents in support of its case. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, acquitted U/s 302 of IPC and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in 3 the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment. 5. 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 submits that the appellant is now aged about 57 years of age and has family responsibilities and he has already remained in jail for about 166 days. The incident took place in the year 2005 and since then the appellant is facing the lis. This appeal is pending since 2007. Hence, considering all these facts, the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of Anupa Munda (PW-1), Laila Minj (PW-2), Rampratap (PW-3) and Dr. Kiran Bhajagwali (PW-11), establish the involvement of the Appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed. 9. As regards the sentence part, the incident had taken place in the year 2005 i.e. about 20 years ago. At that time, the 4 appellant was aged about 37 years and now he must be aged about 57 years having family responsibility. The appellant is facing the lis since 2005 and he has already remained in jail for about 166 days. Taking into consideration all these facts, it would not be appropriate to send back the appellant to jail and the ends of justice would serve if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 10. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 304-A of IPC is maintained and the sentence of RI for 2 years is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 166 days. 11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 12. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender in this case. However, his 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. 13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/-/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.