1 2025:CGHC:11874 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 972 of 20 11 • Jaynandan S/o Chaitan Ram aged about 47 years, R/o Village – Bhagora, Thana & Tahsil – Farsabahar, District – Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Station House Officer, Police Station Farsabahar, District – Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 10 / 03 /202 5 1 Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 24.02.2025, the appellant is present in person before this Court. His presence be marked. 2 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur, at Kunkuri, District - Jashpur (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.03.12 15:58:39 +0530 2 68/2009 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 304 Part-II of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional S.I. for 1 month. 3 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Saniyaro Bai lodged a report stating therein that on 22.07.2009 her husband was going to bring some domestic items at that time the present appellant stopped him and used filthy language and also assaulted him with stic on account of such assault the deceased Shivnandan fell down and thereafter he was taken to the hospital for treatment whereby he referred to another hospital for better treatment, however, on the way Shivnandan succumbed to his injuries. On the basis of the complaint, FIR was registered and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant. 4 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 5 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.11.2011, learned Judge has acquitted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506-B and 341 of IPC. However, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offences as mentioned in para-2 of this judgment. 3 Hence, the present appeal. 6 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2009, and thereby more than 15 years have rolled by since then. At present, the appellant is aged about 62 years and he has already remained in jail for about 2 years, 5 months and 18 days, 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 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant. 8 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 9 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses Jubel Toppo (PW-2), Kartik Ram (PW-3), Smt. Saniyaro Bai (PW-4), Mangal Bai (PW-5), Budha Ram (PW-11), S.L. Koushik (PW-13) and Dr. Ajit Kumar Minj (PW-14), establish the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC. 10 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place in 2009 about 15 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that the appellant is illiterate, he has 4 no criminal antecedent and he has already remained in jail for about 2 years, 5 months and 18 days, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 11 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it appropriate to send back the appellant to jail. Hence, appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him instead of suffering rigorous imprisonment for 5 years for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC. However, the fine of Rs. 500/- imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court is hereby enhanced to Rs. 5000/-. The imposed/enhanced fine amount by this Court today shall be payable by the appellant, failing which the appellant shall be liable to undergo S.I. for 2 months. 12 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 13 Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 14 Record of the trial Court be sent along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu