1 2025:CGHC:43173-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1953 of 2023 1 - Devnarayan Sahu S/o Late Bishesar Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Sunderkera, Police Station- Gobra Nayapara, District- Raipur (Now District Gariyaband) C.G. 2 - Smt. Kanti Bai W/o Devnarayan Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Sunderkera, Police Station- Gobra Nayapara, District- Raipur (Now District Gariyaband) C.G. --- Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Police Station- Gobra Nayapara, District- Gariyaband C.G. --- Respondent CRA No. 1102 of 2024 Daneshwar Sahu S/o Shri Devnarayan Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Sundarkera, P.S. Gobra, Nayapara Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G.). ---Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- District- Magistrate (Police Station Gobra Nayapara) District- Gariyaband ( C.G.). --- Respondent ________________________________________________________ For Appellant in CRA 1953/2023 : Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For Appellant in CRA 1102/2024 : Mr. Rajesh Roshan Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. ________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble M r. Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 26.08.2025 1. Since both the above-captioned appeals arise out of a common incident and common factual matrix, this Court is disposing of both these appeals by a common judgment. 2. CRA No. 1953 of 2023 has been filed by the accused/appellants – Devnarayan Sahu and Smt. Kanti Bai, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the CrPC’) against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.14/2021, by which the appellants have been convicted under Section 201/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I for 1 month to both the appellants. 3. CRA No. 1102 of 2024 has been filed by the accused/appellant – Daheshwar Sahu, who is husband of the deceased against the same impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.14/2021, by which the appellant been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and 201/34 of IPC and sentenced for Life Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I for 3 months and to undergo R.I. for 3 years 3 and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- , in default of payment of fine, additional R.I for 1 month with a direction to run both the sentences concurrently. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 09.02.2020 at around 5:30 AM, the complainant, Ramkumar Sahu, received a phone call from his son-in-law, the accused Devnarayan, informing him that Pinki's condition was very serious and asking him to come quickly. Half an hour later, another call was made, informing the complainant about Pinki's death. Upon arrival, the complainant found injuries on Pinki Sahu's neck and face. A morgue was registered at the Gobra Nayapara police station, and due to the deceased being a newlywed, a panchnama was conducted in the presence of the Executive Magistrate, followed by an autopsy. The post-mortem report revealed head injuries and rib fractures, leading to the case being taken up for investigation. During the investigation, it was found that the deceased's husband, the accused Daneshwar Sahu, had returned home from a Chhatti ceremony around 11 PM on 09.02.2020. He allegedly pushed his wife, Pinki Sahu, and slapped her. When she resisted, the accused became enraged and beat her with his fists and kicked her. He then allegedly pressed his knee on her chest, causing her to fall and killed her. The accused Daneshwar Sahu forbade his parents from revealing the incident to anyone and instructed them to say that the deceased had sustained injuries from a cooler. Following the morgue inquiry, a case was registered at the Gobra 4 Nayapara police station as Crime No. 66/2020 under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During the investigation, a site map was prepared by the police and the patwari. The accused individuals were arrested. The seized property in the case was sent to the FSL for examination through the Superintendent of Police. Statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, and after completing other necessary formalities, a charge sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the IPC. The case was committed to the Sessions Court and subsequently transferred to the Court of Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur for trial." 5. Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the IPC and were read out and explained to the accused, they denied committing the crime and expressed their desire for trial; hence their plea were recorded. 6. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 36 documents Exs.P-1 to P- 36. Statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which they denied guilt. 7. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned hereinabove, against which, these criminal appeals have been preferred. 5 8. Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel for appellants – Devnarayan Sahu and Smt. Kanti Bai in CRA No. 1953 of 2023 vehemently argued that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the facts and evidence available on record while passing the impugned order. He further argued that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the present appellants have neither concealed the evidence nor disappeared the evidence of murder of deceased Pinki Sahu, they were not present at the place of incident and they have narrated the incident as they have been informed by accused Daneshwar Sahu. He submitted that the learned trial Court has also failed to appreciate that the incident took place between the accused Daneshwar Sahu and deceased Pinki Sahu, therefore, the present appellants were not even knowledge of actual incident as they were sleeping in separate room and the deceased along with accused Daneshwar Sahu were sleeping in other room. He lastly submits that the ingredients/ elements of Section 201 IPC are not available in the instant case, therefore, the conviction of the present appellants under Section 201/34 of IPC being unsustainable in law, deserves to be quashed. 9. Mr. Rajesh Roshan Singh, learned counsel for appellant – Daneshwar Sahu in CRA No.1102/2024 submits that learned trial Court erred in holding the appellant guilt for offence under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the IPC that of having subjected to assault the deceased by way of hand and fist, so that she died. 6 He further submits that as there is no eyewitness to the incident as such, injury sustained on the body of the deceased was neither mentioned by whom it was inflicted nor with the means it was subjected upon the deceased, as there was no recovery of any weapon of assault. The witnesses are the blood relatives of the deceased and their depositions deposed before the trial Court are full of contradictions and omissions. He also submits that the deposition of Medical Officer consists of opinion of ill effect over the body of the deceased due to consumption of medicines for long duration with respect to treatment of mental problem could not be overlooked and the injuries sustained on the part of the deceased was no on the vital part of the body. As such, criminal appeal filed on behalf of appellant Daneshwar Sahu deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment so far as it relates to the present appellant deserves to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent/State, supports the impugned judgment and submits that conviction of the appellants / accused is based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution during investigation recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses in which they have categorically deposed in their statements regarding conduct and commission of offence by the accused / appellants, which is concurrent evidence against the accused / appellants and thus, learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused / appellants. Therefore, 7 both the appeals deserve to be dismissed. He further submits that learned trial Court has come to the conclusion regarding involvement of the accused / appellants in the crime in question under the concluding paras of the judgment in which learned trial Court has observed all incriminating circumstances against the accused / appellants, which connect them with the instant crime and chain of circumstances are fully linked and completed with each other. Furthermore, the incident took place inside the house of the accused/appellants and no explanation has been offered by them under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Thus, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the judgment of the trial Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court and as such, criminal appeals deserve to be dismissed. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 12. The first question for consideration would be, whether death of deceased Pinki Sahu was homicidal in nature, which the trial Court has recorded to be homicidal in nature based upon testimony of Dr. A.K. Sharma (PW-6), who has conducted postmortem and submitted PM report vide Ex.P-9 and later given short PM report vide Ex.P-10, in which he has clearly opined that cause of death is due to multiple contusions over face and head which has cause severe head injuries with fractures of 4 ribs on 8 left sides with contusion of lung and haematoma of lungs and these injuries have caused instant death and all the injuries are homicidal injuries leading to shock and hemorrhage. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Even otherwise, it has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. We hereby affirm the said finding. 13. The next question for consideration is whether appellant- Daneshwar Sahu is the author of the crime, which the trial Court has answered in affirmative relying upon the circumstantial evidence available on record. It is house murder, which the appellant was required to offer explanation in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, which he has failed to offer and consequently, finding other circumstance established, proceeded to convict him for offence under Section 302 of the IPC. 14. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, states as under: - “106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.—When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” 15. The law regarding under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is well settled. The unnatural death of Pinki Sahu took place in the house of the appellants. 16. As per the requirement of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the accused were required to give plausible and convincing 9 explanation about the circumstances, in which, the deceased was found dead in their house. Where an offence like murder is committed inside the house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. 17. In view of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot keep away by simply keeping quite and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on the accused to offer any explanation. 18. In the matter of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681 the Supreme Court whilst applying provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, observed in para 14 reads as under: “14. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the Courts. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is 10 punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration (b) appended to this section throws some light on the content and scope of this provision and it reads: (b) A is charged with traveling on a railway without ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him." 19. On the interpretation of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in the matter of Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer reported in AIR 1956 SC 404 in paragraph 9 it was observed by the Supreme Court thus: "9. This lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are "especially" within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word "especially" stresses that. It means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted 11 otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not." 20. In the matter of State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar and others reported in (2000) 8 SCC 382, the Supreme Court has observed in paras 31 to 33 as under: “31. The prestine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule nor would it impair the temper of the rule. On the other hand, if the traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the prosecution is allowed to be wrapped in pedantic coverage the offenders in serious offences would be the major beneficiaries, and the society would be the casualty. 32. In this case, when the prosecution succeeded in establishing the afore narrated circumstances, the Court has to presume the existence of certain facts. Presumption is a course recognized by the law for the court to rely on in conditions such as this. 33. Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the Court exercises a process of reasoning and reach a logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above principle has gained legislative 12 recognition in India when Section 114 is incorporated in the Evidence Act. It empowers the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process Court shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the case.” 21. The decision of the Supreme Court in Shambhu Nath Mehra (supra) was followed with approval in the matter of Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar reported in 2021 10 SCC 725 in which it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under: “22. Thus, Section 106 of the Evidence Act will apply to those cases where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts which are within the special knowledge of the accused. When the accused fails to offer proper explanation about the existence of said other facts, the court can always draw an appropriate inference. 23. When a case is resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such a failure may provide an additional link to the chain of circumstances. In a case governed by circumstantial evidence, if the chain of circumstances which is required to be established by the prosecution is not established, the failure of the accused to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not relevant at all. When the chain is not complete, falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the accused.” 22. In the present case, the deceased was found dead in her house and at that time, the appellant Daneshwar Sahu and deceased 13 Pinki Sahu were present and going to sleep in a room inside the house and as per the provision of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden to prove that the appellant was not present in the house at the time of incident and he was present elsewhere is on the appellant, which he admittedly failed to prove in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. 23. It is the case of no direct evidence, rather conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. 24. We may also make a reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P., (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein it has been observed thus: “In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence....”. 25. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 79, it was laid down by the Supreme Court that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests: 14 “(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.” 26. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out by the Supreme Court that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. 27. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book “Wills’ Circumstantial Evidence” (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved 15 and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted”. 28. Five golden principles which constitute Panchseel of proof of case based on circumstantial evidence have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 which state as under :- “(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned “must” or “should” and not “may be” established; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and 16 (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 29. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others vs. State of Gujarat Etc., AIR 2020 SC 180 observed that in a case of circumstantial evidence, law postulates two-fold requirements. Firstly, that every link in the chain of circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the accused must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and secondly, all the circumstances must be consistent pointing out only towards the guilt of the accused. We need not burden this judgment by referring to other judgments as the above principles have been consistently followed and approved by this Court time and again. 30. The Supreme Court in the matter of Suresh and Another v State of Haryana, (2018) 18 SCC 654 has observed that cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. The court at paras 41 and 42 has observed thus : “41. The aforesaid tests are aptly referred as Panchsheel of proof in Circumstantial Cases (refer to Prakash v. State of Rajasthan). The expectation is that the prosecution case should reflect careful portrayal of the factual circumstances and inferences thereof and their compatibility with a singular 17 hypothesis wherein all the intermediate facts and the case itself are proved beyond reasonable doubt. 42. Circumstantial evidence are those facts, which the court may infer further. There is a stark contrast between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. In cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. In majority of cases, the inference of guilt is usually drawn by establishing the case from its initiation to the point of commission wherein each factual link is ultimately based on evidence of a fact or an inference thereof. Therefore, the courts have to identify the facts in the first place so as to fit the case within the parameters of “chain link theory” and then see whether the case is made out beyond reasonable doubt. In India we have for a long time followed the “chain link theory” since Hanumant case, which of course needs to be followed herein also.” 31. In the present case, the prosecution has proved the following circumstantial evidence against the appellants:- (i) On the night of the incident dated 09.02.2020 at around 11.00 pm, the accused – Daneshwar Sahu was in the house with his wife Pinky Sahu before and after the death. (ii) According to the evidence of the Medical Officer, injuries were found on the head and chest of the deceased, which resulted in her death. No explanation has been given by the accused regarding the said 18 injuries and the defense has stated that the deceased died due to hitting the cooler and falling, in this regard the Medical Officer has ruled out the possibility of the injuries found on the body of the deceased being caused by falling. (iii) Apart from this, the accused had given false information to the family members of the deceased regarding her death and were preparing to take her body to the cremation ground by hiding the injuries by applying gulaal on the body of the deceased. When the family members of the deceased saw the injuries on the body of the deceased, they informed the police. 32. The next question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court has rightly held that appellant- Daneshwar Sahu is author of the crime by relying upon the following circumstances:- (i) Homicidal death was proved by the prosecution as per postmortem report (Exs.P-9 & P-10) given by Dr.A.K. Sharma Singh (PW-6) who conducted autopsy. (ii) As per the case of the prosecution, the fact of death of deceased Pinki Sahu was within the knowledge of the appellant and her dead body was found inside the room wherein the deceased and appellant were residing, however, there was no any explanation given by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the 19 CrPC. Thus, burden of proof was on the appellant to explain such circumstance, which he failed to explain. 33. It can thus clearly be seen that it is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The Court holds that it is a primary principle that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’. It has been held that the facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. It has further been held that the circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. It has been held that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused. 34. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 20 35. Satisfactory evidence has been presented on record by the prosecution to conclude that the appellant was last seen with the deceased. On the night of the incident dated 09.02.2020 at around 11.00 pm, the accused – Daneshwar Sahu was in the house with his wife Pinky Sahu before and after the death. According to the evidence of the Medical Officer, injuries were found on the head and chest of the deceased, which resulted in her death. No explanation has been given by the accused regarding the said injuries and the defense has stated that the deceased died due to hitting the cooler and falling, in this regard the Medical Officer has ruled out the possibility of the injuries found on the body of the deceased being caused by falling. Apart from this, the accused had given false information to the family members of the deceased regarding her death and were preparing to take her body to the cremation ground by hiding the injuries by applying gulaal on the body of the deceased. When the family members of the deceased saw the injuries on the body of the deceased, they informed the police. 36. Applying the aforesaid well settled principles of law and taking into the facts in totality and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered view the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial Court has observed all incriminating circumstances against the appellants, which connect them with the instant crime and chain of circumstances are fully linked and 21 completed with each other. Thus, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the judgment of the trial Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court. 37. For the foregoing reasons CRA No. 1102 of 2024 filed on behalf of accused /appellant Daneshwar Sahu, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 38. The appellant Suresh Kumar Meher is reported to be in jail. He shall serve the remaining period of jail sentence as has been awarded to him by the learned trial Court. 39. As regards quantum of sentence imposed upon the accused appellants Devnarayan Sahu and Smt. Kanti Bai, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased and the allegation against them is that they have applied gulaal on the body of the deceased for hiding the injuries sustained by the deceased, considering the fact the aforesaid appellants were in jail since 11.02.2020 till 13.11.2020 i.e. 09 months and 06 days and after the conviction, they were in jail since 16.08.2023 till order granting bail i.e. 11.10.2023 i.e. 01 month and 25 days and as such they have already suffered jail sentence of about 11 months and have already deposited fine amount of Rs. 500/- each imposed by the trial Court, therefore, the sentence already undergone by them may suffice to meet the ends of justice, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be 22 served if the sentence awarded to appellants Devnarayan Sahu and Smt. Kanti Bai, is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 40. Accordingly, conviction of the appellants Devnarayan Sahu and Smt. Kanti Bai under Section 201/34 of the IPC is hereby affirmed, however, they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 41. As a result, CRA No. 1953 of 2023 is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. It is stated that the appellants Devnarayan Sahu and Smt. Kanti Bai are on bail. Their bail bonds and sureties stand discharged. They are not required to surrender. 42. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. It is further directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant Daheshwar Sahu is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra