1 2025:CGHC:24852 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 811 of 2025 Dhansai Yadav S/o Narsing Yadav Aged About 32 Years (Now 39 Years), R/o Village Lalaguda, Rautpara, Police Station Burgum, District Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Burgum, District Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Savita Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 17.06.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 415 (2) of BNSS challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.02.2020 passed by learned Second Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.06.18 10:57:37 +0530 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) in Session Case No. 24/2018 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 201/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 1 month. 2. As per the case of prosecution, on 17.11.2017 when Gayatri Yadav (now deceased) did not return home by 6:00 PM, her family members began searching for her. During the search, Gayatri’s bag and mobile phone were found near the courtyard of her house. Around midnight, Gayatri’s fiance’s brother, Dhansay Yadav, informed that the deceased Gayatri Yadav’s body was seen near a mango tree. Subsequently, on the same night of 18/11/2017 at around 2:00 AM, the body of the deceased was found under a mango tree in the mustard field of her house in Pidepara. On the basis of the report by the complainant, Somaru, Dehati Marg Intimation No. 0/2017 was registered. A post-mortem examination was conducted. As per the post-mortem report, the cause of death of the deceased Gayatri Yadav was found to be hanging. During investigation, statements were recorded from the deceased’s friends — Manko Kashyap, Shanti Yadav, and Lakhan Yadav — which revealed that her fiancé Mahendra Yadav/co-accused used to doubt Gayatri Yadav’s character and would frequently abuse her verbally. During further interrogation, the appellant/accused Dhansay Yadav disclosed that Mahendra Yadav had called Gayatri Yadav to a new house in Lalaguda, where he strangled her by hanging and dragged her using a wooden beam (duloom), thereby committed murder. To make it appear as a suicide, he took Dhansay Yadav’s motorcycle bearing registration number CG 17 KJ 4833, placed the body beneath a mango tree in the courtyard of their house at night, and fled the scene. After completion of investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for offence under Section 302/34 & Section 201/34 of IPC. 3 3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses in support of its case. The statement of the appellant / accused was 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 the appellant of offence U/s 302/34 of the IPC. However, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in 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 she does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines her argument only on sentence part. She further submits that at present the appellant is aged about 40 years and have family responsibilities and he has already remained in jail for about 9 months 18 days. The incident took place in the year 2017 and since then the appellant is facing the lis. 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 with utmost circumspection. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of Somaru Yadav (PW-1), Shanti Yadav (PW-2), Ratturam Gawde (PW-8), Lakhan Yadav (PW-18), 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 4 Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 201/34 of IPC which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed. 9. As regards the sentence part, taking into consideration that the incident had taken place in the year 2017. The appellant is now aged about 40 years and having family responsibilities, he is facing the lis since 2017 and he has already remained in jail for about 9 months & 18 days. Taking into consideration all these facts, the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 10. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 201/34 of IPC is maintained and the sentence of RI for 1 years is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 9 months & 18 days. However, the fine amount and its default stipulation imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. 11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 12. The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case/s. 13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the concerned trial Court as well as to the concerned Superintendent of Police for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham