1 2025:CGHC:1741 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment Reserved on 25.11.2024 Judgment Delivered on 10. 01.2025 CRA No. 109 of 2005 Hari Shankar Tiwari S/o Bhola Prasad Tiwari, aged about 26 years, R/o Village: Jamkani, Parsapara P.S. Seetapur, District: Sarguja (C.G.) ... Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through SHO. P.S. Seetapur, District: Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Rupesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey CAV Judgment 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 05.02.2005 passed by the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 123/2004, whereby the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- 2 Conviction Sentence U/S 498 (A) of IPC R.I for 03 years each with fine amount of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 09 months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased Smt. Chandrawati was the wedded wife of the appellant Harishankar Tiwari, their marriage was solemnized in the year 1996. After marriage she was frequently subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant as she did not bring motorcycle and money as dowry. On the date of incident, i.e.,. 30.11.2003 also appellant subjected her to cruelty and harassment, beaten his wife, being fed up by this, she poured kerosene over her body and set herself ablaze. Immediately she was admitted to Seetapur Hospital, and after preliminary treatment she was referred to Ambikapur for further treatment, and during the treatment the deceased Smt. Chandrawati died. On the basis of dying declaration, FIR was registered by the Police Station Seetapur. Police investigated into the matte. 3. After completion of due and necessary investigation, the charge- sheet was filed against the accused person/appellant bearing Crime No. 173/03 under Sections 306 & 498 (A) of IPC and the Challan was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First 3 Class, Ambikapur who committed the matter before the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Ambikapur, for trial under Sections 306 & 498-A of the IPC. Thereafter, the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur has acquitted the accused person/appellant of Section 306 of IPC, but convicted him under Section 498 (A) of IPC, to which the accused person/appellant abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. 4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses. The statement of the accused person/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all the inculpatory circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case and pleaded his ingenuousness and false entailment in the case. 5. The learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence convicted the appellant under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in the inaugural paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal filed by the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is contrary to law and material available on record. The learned trial Court ought not to have convicted and sentenced the appellant on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, which is full of 4 contradictions and omissions. The learned trial Court ought to have acquitted the accused/appellant of the charge having not done so. It is clear that the offence under Section 498-A of IPC was not made out, but the learned trial Court grossly erred in convicting the accused/appellant on the basis of the statement made by Kamla Devi (PW-03) as she never told about any subjection of ill treatment by the appellant, the same does not establish any cruelty. As such, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, he submits that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A of IPC as imposed by the trial Court is just and proper, considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2003, this appeal is pending since 2005, The appellant is now aged about 46 years, he has remained in jail for near about 14 months and he did not misuse the liberty while on bail and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and rightly convicted the appellant. So, this appeal is being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed. 5 8. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 9. From bare perusal of the record of the learned trial Court it is clear that the learned trial Court has framed charges under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC against the accused/appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted the appellant under Section 306 of IPC, but convicted him under Section 498-A of IPC. 10. It is not disputed in this case, that the deceased Chandrawati was wife of accused/appellant and her death was due to antemortem burns and it is also not disputed that she committed suicide. 11. Kamla Devi (PW-03), mother of the deceased stated that her son- in-law beats and harasses her daughter. She also stated that at the time of incident her daughter was 07 months’ pregnant and her daughter told her many times that the accused/appellant harasses her, in her cross-examination she remained firm. 12. Kunti Bai (PW-04), mother of the accused/appellant also stated that her daughter-in-law told her that the accused/appellant inflicted blows on her and that is why, she set herself ablaze. 13. Ishwar Prasad (PW-07), stated that accused/appellant quarreled with his wife (deceased), therefore, she committed suicide. The 6 learned trial Court minutely appreciated the statement of all witnesses and found that the offence under Section 306 of IPC is not made out against the appellant, but it is clear from the statements of Kamla Devi (PW-03) mother of the deceased and mother of the accused/appellant Kunti Bai (PW-04) that behaviour of the accused/appellant is not proper with his wife and he tortured her. As such, the learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellant under Section 498-A of IPC. 14. In view of the aforesaid evidence of all witnesses and medical evidence, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding the appellant guilty under Sections 498-A of IPC. So the conviction of the appellant under Sections 498-A of IPC is affirmed. 15. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2003 and this appeal is pending since 2005 and during pendency of trial the appellant had remained in jail for near about 14 months and the accused is now 46 years old middle aged person. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A of IPC, the sentence imposed thereunder by the trial Court is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. 17. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in 7 view of provision of Section 437-A of CrPC. 18. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Uttej